Not sure which thread to put this picture in ; )
The Top 1% has never had it so good , it is the middle class that is taking it up the ass. If you work for a living you will be taxed to death so the wealthy can enjoy their record low tax rates. And the Military machine can enjoy the effect it has on their stocks and yes so the poor can live as well as the rich
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The Top 1% has never had it so good , it is the middle class that is taking it up the ass. If you work for a living you will be taxed to death so the wealthy can enjoy their record low tax rates. And the Military machine can enjoy the effect it has on their stocks and yes so the poor can live as well as the rich [/quote]
The top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income taxes.
Even you can figure this one out.
Even in my socialist country, the top 10% of income earners possess 62% of the total wealth and pay between 38 and 45% in taxes.
There is something wrong either with America or with these datas.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Even in my socialist country, the top 10% of income earners possess 62% of the total wealth and pay between 38 and 45% in taxes.
There is something wrong either with America or with these datas.[/quote]
Don’t feel bad the average American is clueless as to what the rich really pay. They listen to the class warfare perpetuated by Obama and some democrats, and of course the liberal media.
But these are the facts my friend. In America the rich are overtaxed to make up for the vast number of people (about 47%) who pay NOTHING!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The Top 1% has never had it so good , it is the middle class that is taking it up the ass. If you work for a living you will be taxed to death so the wealthy can enjoy their record low tax rates. And the Military machine can enjoy the effect it has on their stocks and yes so the poor can live as well as the rich [/quote]
The top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income taxes.
Even you can figure this one out.[/quote]
I am probably in the top 10% , what does the top 1% pay in relations to their income
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The Top 1% has never had it so good , it is the middle class that is taking it up the ass. If you work for a living you will be taxed to death so the wealthy can enjoy their record low tax rates. And the Military machine can enjoy the effect it has on their stocks and yes so the poor can live as well as the rich [/quote]
The top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income taxes.
Even you can figure this one out.[/quote]
I am probably in the top 10% , what does the top 1% pay in relations to their income
[/quote]
The top 1% pays 37% of all income tax. They are paying far more than their fair share, but you’d never know it by what Obama has said. And the idiots in the Occupy Wallstreet movement are clueless when it comes to understanding that fact as well. But it was Obama that started attacking the rich as if they are responsible for his poor performance. How anyone who actually pays their fair share of taxes could vote for him is beyond me.
Just click on the chart and you can see where you are tax wise.
The top %1 pay a lower rate than the top %50
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The top %1 pay a lower rate than the top %50 [/quote]
That is absolutely untrue. You can read what the top 1% pay. Just as I posted legitimate figures for those paying taxes in America I challenge you to post proof of your ridiculous assertion!
You’ve been listening to Obama and the class warfare bunch too long.
I think you may both be missing the point, and yes the whole tax debate from both ends revolves around class warfare.
The majority of extremely wealthy people gain money from investments and capital gains. Not only that but they have very proficient CPA’s who know loopholes and deductions. Real estate investment is a vehicle used very often in this.
People who obtain most of their means from income, are the middle class to upper middle class (lawyers, doctors, etc) who would be affected by higher INCOME tax rates.
Of course you have net beneficiaries from the government dole as well.
One side has a vested interest in the loopholes, deductions, and low capital gains tax, while the other side has a vested interest in further taxation of people other than themselves for their “benefits”.
“Fair” is often an overused word in the taxation discussion. Their have been few people brave enough to propose really simplifying the tax code, which could increase revenue by widening the base and, also, make things more “fair” and more importantly, transparent.
The questions one can ask are, what are the incentives given by our current tax code? You get benefits for having children below a certain income level? You are going to pursue that, you have capital gains taxes at 15% while income in the top bracket approaches 40% what are you going to do?
Do the lower classes of people have enough disposable income to take advantage of that 15%? No.
What about the tax advantages offered by real estate and other such investments? It funnels money towards providing housing, and for certain people a much more efficient way to keep money from Uncle Sam.
[quote]666Rich wrote:
I think you may both be missing the point, and yes the whole tax debate from both ends revolves around class warfare.
The majority of extremely wealthy people gain money from investments and capital gains. Not only that but they have very proficient CPA’s who know loopholes and deductions. Real estate investment is a vehicle used very often in this.
People who obtain most of their means from income, are the middle class to upper middle class (lawyers, doctors, etc) who would be affected by higher INCOME tax rates.
Of course you have net beneficiaries from the government dole as well.
One side has a vested interest in the loopholes, deductions, and low capital gains tax, while the other side has a vested interest in further taxation of people other than themselves for their “benefits”.
“Fair” is often an overused word in the taxation discussion. Their have been few people brave enough to propose really simplifying the tax code, which could increase revenue by widening the base and, also, make things more “fair” and more importantly, transparent.
The questions one can ask are, what are the incentives given by our current tax code? You get benefits for having children below a certain income level? You are going to pursue that, you have capital gains taxes at 15% while income in the top bracket approaches 40% what are you going to do?
Do the lower classes of people have enough disposable income to take advantage of that 15%? No.
What about the tax advantages offered by real estate and other such investments? It funnels money towards providing housing, and for certain people a much more efficient way to keep money from Uncle Sam.[/quote]
None of that negatates the fact that the top 1% pay 37% of all income tax! That means that they are IN FACT paying more.
That cannot be refuted. Even though some may have loopholes etc., they’re still paying far, far more than any other group…P E R I O D !
lol Zeb, you sound like you’re about to have a heart attack. You alright man?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
To ZEB:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
Shall I go on?
Are the Veterans unsatisfied with their government run healthcare? How about the folks on Medicare and Medicaid? And of the polls you posted did they interview people on government run healthcare and include them in the overall satisfaction of the healthcare system?
And I was born in this country and will stay and fight for what I believe is fair and equitable. Should minorities and women have moved out of this country and gone somewhere else where they were able to participate?
The capitalist system? Is that what we have? No. What we have are monopolies where we only have the choice THEY decide to give us. This is no free market my friend.
So in your basic view of economics (competition) as it relates to healthcare you believe we will actually pay less. Bwahahaha! It’s funny how dogmatic one’s ideology can make them look so blind. Their is so much prima facie evidence to the contrary debating it would be like trying to have a conversation with a rock.
And my suggestion to you is to get your face out of books that attempt to teach a theory and take a look around at it’s real world application. But then again people like you are only concerned with winning and not the truth.[/quote]
Not only don’t Americans want Obamacare they don’t much care for Obama when it comes to economics. Did you read the latest polling on that one?
Your hero took a serious beating. It seems that there is a growing number of Americans who don’t think obama knows his ass from first base when it comes to the economy…or health care.
Now why do you suppose they think that?
Give it a rest Zeppers…socialism isn’t going to get a foothold in the US.
[/quote]
Some didn’t like Obamacare because it didn’t go far enough.
I didn’t vote for him but I don’t suppose you understand because you are locked into a “us” vs. “them” mentality when it comes to the two major political parties. As I stated you are only concerned with who’s side is winning and not the truth.
I mean isn’t it a article of faith for republicans -and rarely challenged by democrats- that if you lower taxes on the wealthy they will invest and this in turn spurs job growth? If so, where are all the jobs? In 1995 I believe the effective tax rate on millionaires was 30.4% and unemployment ran about 5.4%. Now the effective tax rate is 22.4% and unemployment is over 10%. How can this be?
The 50’s were one of the most explosive and stable decades economically speaking for the U.S. However, the nominal tax rate on the rich was 90%. I believe the effective tax rate was about 70%. How is this possible? This is the exact opposite of what is supposed to happen. It is a theory debunked and very few economists -who aren’t on the payroll- believe it.
Now if the rich were taxed like they ought to be there would be so much more money for infrastructure building and the like. This in turn would create jobs and people could become consumers again which would create demand which would create jobs. The middle class, poor and the rich could all benefit.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I mean isn’t it a article of faith for republicans -and rarely challenged by democrats- that if you lower taxes on the wealthy they will invest and this in turn spurs job growth? If so, where are all the jobs? In 1995 I believe the effective tax rate on millionaires was 30.4% and unemployment ran about 5.4%. Now the effective tax rate is 22.4% and unemployment is over 10%. How can this be?
[/quote]
Are you seriously suggesting that the tax rates on the wealthy are the one and only factor that determines employment rates?
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
lol Zeb, you sound like you’re about to have a heart attack. You alright man?[/quote]
I’m fine you?
I did post what the top 1% actually pay so anything other than agreement that they are overtaxed makes no sense to me.
Why would you or anyone else talk about loopholes? They obviously do not work for the top 1%. Sure some have loopholes and save money. But when you look at the top 1% as a group they are carrying the nation on their backs tax wise. So, subscribing to a myth that the top 1% escape taxation is the opposite of what is actually happening.
Simple.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
To ZEB:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/americans_dont_want_health-car.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
Shall I go on?
Are the Veterans unsatisfied with their government run healthcare? How about the folks on Medicare and Medicaid? And of the polls you posted did they interview people on government run healthcare and include them in the overall satisfaction of the healthcare system?
And I was born in this country and will stay and fight for what I believe is fair and equitable. Should minorities and women have moved out of this country and gone somewhere else where they were able to participate?
The capitalist system? Is that what we have? No. What we have are monopolies where we only have the choice THEY decide to give us. This is no free market my friend.
So in your basic view of economics (competition) as it relates to healthcare you believe we will actually pay less. Bwahahaha! It’s funny how dogmatic one’s ideology can make them look so blind. Their is so much prima facie evidence to the contrary debating it would be like trying to have a conversation with a rock.
And my suggestion to you is to get your face out of books that attempt to teach a theory and take a look around at it’s real world application. But then again people like you are only concerned with winning and not the truth.[/quote]
Not only don’t Americans want Obamacare they don’t much care for Obama when it comes to economics. Did you read the latest polling on that one?
Your hero took a serious beating. It seems that there is a growing number of Americans who don’t think obama knows his ass from first base when it comes to the economy…or health care.
Now why do you suppose they think that?
Give it a rest Zeppers…socialism isn’t going to get a foothold in the US.
[/quote]
Some didn’t like Obamacare because it didn’t go far enough.[/quote]
Yeah…“some” about 20% on the far left —LOL the left wing socialist nut jobs!
The truth is when the democrats are “winning” the people, the economy and our entire nation suffers (in most cases). And it is no exception with Obama, he’s an unmitigated disaster!
The economoy grew by leaps and bounds when Bush lowered taxes for ALL AMERICANS by 5%. Check your history before you post crazy shit. All Obama had to do was give small business a series of tax breaks as 67% of all new hires come from small business. But he’s a left leaning “I hate people who make money” kinda guy, so that didn’t happen.
You do not understand one thing about economic history. In the 50’s the rich actually had more tax breaks than you could shanke a stick at. They all went south when Reagan lowered taxes to their very lowest point. He took the tax loopholes away but lowered taxes for everyone. And that created 20 million new jobs!
[quote]Now if the rich were taxed like they ought to be there would be so much more money for infrastructure building and the like. This in turn would create jobs and people could become consumers again which would create demand which would create jobs. The middle class, poor and the rich could all benefit.
[/quote]
That is the socialist way of creating jobs. You want to take the money from those who have earned it to hire government workers. That’s not creating a healthy economy, that is creating a large federal government.
And by the way as I posted above the top 1% pay 37% of all income tax. How much do you want them to pay? Do you think they’re going to bust their butt if they have to give 75 cents of every dollar to the government? Right now in some states they pay about 60-65 cents of every dollar. They are well over taxed. What is needed is to lower the tax rates for all tax paying Americans as Reagan did. And actually make the 47% who pay nothing…start paying something.
That would be fair but it will never happen under Obama - And if he is reelected and does not renew the Bush tax cuts for all Americans he will crash the economy and we will go into a much deeper recession than what we are now barely out of.
Socialism doesn’t work Zep–Been tried and it has failed everywhere!
How Taxes Work . . . the story of ten men going out to dinner representing how our tax system in the U.S. works… and why its not smart to continually overtax the rich?
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on -- it does make you think!!
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men ? the poorest ? would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man ? the richest ? would pay $59.
That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement ? until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six ? the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Monaco and the Caribbean.
Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!
[quote]squating_bear wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I mean isn’t it a article of faith for republicans -and rarely challenged by democrats- that if you lower taxes on the wealthy they will invest and this in turn spurs job growth? If so, where are all the jobs? In 1995 I believe the effective tax rate on millionaires was 30.4% and unemployment ran about 5.4%. Now the effective tax rate is 22.4% and unemployment is over 10%. How can this be?
[/quote]
Are you seriously suggesting that the tax rates on the wealthy are the one and only factor that determines employment rates?[/quote]
No. I’m mearly suggesting that the mantra carried by the Reps is simply not true.
To ZEB"
Are the Veterans and folks on Medicare nut jobs? I mean they love their government run healthcare.
So W. had a better economy than Clinton?
Oh yeah Obama is really a “I hate people who make money” Is that why he bailed out the ultra-wealthy bankers and his Justice Department has done nothing to investigate and prosecute…bwahahhaha. Another example how how the dogma you espouse to exposes your absolute blindness.
Dude you are lost, During the 50’s the rich paid more in taxes than ever before loopholes included. Check history!
So a healthy economy to you is have the median income for average families is to stay stagnant and decline and the rich to suck up all the increase in productivity. Even Henry Hazlitt said that the only way a worker should receive a wage increase is to see an increase in production. We’ve seen that the last 30-40 years but the workers aren’t getting the fruits of their labor. It is being systematically taken from them by the elite. Nice economy where the few prosper at the expense of the many.
Really, which states have a tax rate of 60-65%?
And taxing those who can afford it as a means of helping out the country and keeping it from becoming a fascist concentration of wealth is just smart and works!
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
To ZEB"
Are the Veterans and folks on Medicare nut jobs? I mean they love their government run healthcare.[/quote]
Your comment was an implication that the Bush tax cuts did nothing and the economy was poor. When in fact the Bush tax cuts of 2001 created around 6 million jobs. Now what has Obama done since taking the oath of office? Drive up unemployment add 5 trillion to our national debt (more than the past 3 Presidents combined!) And become the food stamp President.
Actually, Obama has harmed small business far more than big business. He’s increased regulation and made it flat out harder for someone to open and succeed in their own small business. He’s also increased other types of taxes and increased taxes on various industries. But he’s pledged to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for all Americans. And if you don’t think that catastrophe called “Obamacare” will raise your taxes think again. The government will control about 1/7th of the US economy if it is allowed to take over health care. Fortunately I don’t think the Supremem Court will allow that.
Obama is indeed a horrible, horrible President.
You’d better check your history. For starters we did not have thousands of pages of regulations which discourage new business start-ups. Secondly, there were many deductions which allowed the wealthy to mostly escape paying the 80% rates. Reagan got rid of all the loopholes when he lowered everyones taxes back in the 1980’s which lead to the creation of 20 million new jobs. One more point, the 1950s were unique in economic history. The US had the advantages of cheap capital, cheap energy, cheap labor and the only advanced manufacturing base in the world. The US economy would have thrived in that decade regardless what the tax rates were.
Let’s go back to the beginning. If Joe Smith starts an ice cream store and hires 4 employees and succeeds those 4 employees have long-term jobs and Joe might be on his way to creating real wealth for him and his family. If he is taxed at say 25% he then has the capital to expand to two ice cream stores hiring an additional 4 people. I don’t see any losers in that scenario do you?
On the other hand if Joe Smith is taxed to death as you suggest he should be he not only does not expand he has a difficult time meeting payroll. In addition to that those who are over taxed decide that they don’t really need to waste money on ice cream and he sells less of it. This is one way business “recedes.” And we are seeing that right now. No ice cream store 4 employees on the Obama food stamp gravy train.
With federal and state taxes, and property taxes etc. There are many states that end up at 60%-65%. But that’s a good thing according to you right? You think the government needs to be bigger because that has worked WHERE? WHERE HAS IT WORKED? Oh that’s right NO WHERE!
How much do you think you can take from people before they start thinking “what’t the point, why should I work overtime, or strat that second ice cream store?” We are very close to that now as there are few loopholes and taxes are going up according to Obama who has promised to not renew the Bush tax cuts.
Taxing those who can afford it? Say that to yourself 20 times, or until it sounds like crap to you. As I said if you place a bigger burden on those who are already over taxed they will cut back they will not put the effort in growing their businesses.
The top 1% already pay 37% of all taxes! What part about that do you not understand? Do you think they should pay 60% of all taxes…How about 100% of all taxes? What will happen is you’ll get a decreasing share of their wealth. In other words while you may increase the percent the total will actually be less because they will not go out and bust their butt to pay for those who have no earned it an do not deserve it. Thus increasing the size of government and those dependent on it.
Your idea’s are pure folly my friend - You are clueless on exactly how the rich think and what they go through to create their wealth. They will not take the risks if that means giving more to grow an already inefficient government.