reason.com — Tax cheat Tim Geithner, the only member of the Obama economic brain trust who has not yet been fired, testified to the Senate Finance Committee today in favor of the president’s proposed trillion-dollar-deficit budget. Geithner, a Dartmouth man esteemed more for his tennis skills than for his understanding of markets or business, peddled much Keynesian voodoo before a nation whose economy he helped destroy while employed by the Federal Reserve Bank and then the Department of the Treasury.
Feb 15, 2012 View in Crawl 4
benjie25Feb 16, 2012
"Top 1 Percent Pay 37% of taxes"
Top 1% have 90% of the money, they should be paying 90% of the taxes.
aanrFeb 16, 2012
And the bottom 46% don't pay s**t at all. I don't resent the 1% because they do pay taxes. I resent the 46% that's sitting on their asses not throwing any money into the pot.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zero123Feb 16, 2012
you are kidding right? you think the poor sit's on their asses? have you been to inner cities in America? I have to watch people every day go through trash and dumpsters just to get enough food to eat. You understand how incredibly difficult people born into poverty to escape it. Comments like that are callous. They have no money to throw into the pot. If they were to have any excess money, they'd be middle class, and they'd be taxed back into the status of poverty. It sounds like you'd prefer to ignore the poor than to recognize them; it's apparent you have little idea what they struggle with in order to stay alive.
CaptainobliviousFeb 16, 2012
This is problem with propaganda like fox. They turn middle class people against poor people so they can sit back and enjoy the benefits. Its sickening.
zero123Feb 16, 2012
couldn't agree more
hackwrenchFeb 16, 2012
While I agree that Obama engages in class warfare tactics, I find it really warped that Fox News is completely oblivious to the fact that they are far worse... and I regularly watch Fox News.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaFeb 16, 2012
The problem with your comment: Fox and the Republicans have been doing this for a long time, long before Obama (Example: Reagan's Welfare Queen and "young buck" statement when he announced his candidacy.) You are essentially arguing that Country B is waging class warfare for stating that they are being bombed by Country A.
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
But I thought there wasn't a middle class anymore?
mu5qularFeb 16, 2012
Let's be clear. Not everyone is poor because the mans got them down. I know plenty of lazy people that are happy to suck off the teet
concusionFeb 16, 2012
then get new friends
valourFeb 19, 2012
It probably costs less to feed them with food stamps, give them cash via unemployment and other government assistance, and treat their illnesses with medicare than it does to incarcerate them.
I'd say there are more rich people who don't work than there are poor people who don't work. I'd say there are more poor people who want more work than there are rich people who want more work.
I bet Mitt Romney has never even seen the inside of a supermarket.
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
"It probably costs less to feed them with food stamps, give them cash via unemployment and other government assistance, and treat their illnesses with medicare than it does to incarcerate them."
........and why are those the only two choices?
How about "work for money so that you can buy your food and health insurance while staying out of prison".
The rich people who don't "work" aren't a problem. The poor people who don't work are however a problem as they then come to tax payers with a hand out waiting for assistance.
Why should any of us care if Romney's been inside a supermarket before or not?
aanrFeb 16, 2012
"you think the poor sit's on their asses?"
Yes, many do. Not all but there are a large chuck of people who would rather sit on their asses and collect a check from the government instead of working their asses off and making something out of them selves. It takes hard work to get ahead in life not a government hand out.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hackwrenchFeb 16, 2012
aanr is a top contender for using the most buzzwords of all comments to this story.
zero123Feb 16, 2012
I'd be willing to agree that the only solution is hard work and that a handout culture is bad for everyone. Just keep in mind, whenever people vilify "the poor," children born into that demographic are included in the comment. Nothing is straight forward about these topics, and by lopping everyone into that kind of cultural branding makes the ability for them to move out of poverty even harder.
grannysrightFeb 16, 2012
You are correct and the left hates the fact that you are right.
hackwrenchFeb 16, 2012
What does "making something out of them selves" and "get ahead in life" really mean, why is it important to you, and can you explain why it is that the very rich seem to take a lot less hard work, yet aren't quite as accused of not "making something out them selves" or "getting ahead in life"?
PresidentCamachoFeb 17, 2012
" It takes hard work to get ahead in life"
You will only gut buried here for such crazy talk!The common belief is that you should go to college and have a job and paycheck waiting for you after you finish your liberal arts degree. And not have to pay back your loans. And that it is all somebody else's fault, mostly the rich's fault for everything that is "wrong."
valourFeb 19, 2012
Seems to me that it's the rich blaming the poor for everyone's problems in this thread. And by "rich," I mean lower-middle-class people who speak for the rich because they both think abortion is bad, "libs" are evil, and Jesus is awesome.
grannysrightFeb 16, 2012
Those people you see going through the trash to eat, did you ever stop and ask them why? Did you ask them if they had looked for a job lately? Did you ask them if they had family or friends who could help them out? Did you ask them if they were on welfare? Did you ask them if the reason they were living on the streets and eating out of garbage cans was because they had to or because they wanted to be left alone? Believe it or not there are a few out there who live that way because they can't survive in society.
Don't blame this s**t on Republicans, blame on yourself for not stopping and helping those people. Spend some of your money straight out to the person who needs it instead of giving it to some leftwing feelgood group. Oh wait, no you better not give them any money because they just might spend it on a 40oz.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
valourFeb 19, 2012
Many of them are mentally ill and unable to get proper health care. Many are injured or otherwise disabled and cannot work. The remainder have substance abuse problems that can be solved through rehabilitation and therapy, but they can't afford the treatment. They wouldn't even know where to go to get help. And then there are the homeless who do actually work, but they don't make enough money to afford a permanent home.
These are Americans you're talking about. When you start s**tting on Americans, I start thinking of you as being anti-American.
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
Interesting that you believe that 100% of poor people are either mentally ill, injured/disabled, or have substance abuse problems (which in itself is a choice).
You and I clearly don't know the same poor people....Like the guy on disability who said he'd re-roof my house as long as I paid him in cash......
unclefireFeb 16, 2012
47% who pay little or no taxes aren't exactly poor. By defn. the median family income is the point where 1/2 make more and 1/2 make less-- so middle income. That is ~$50k now. Not wealthy, but hardly poor.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jtsmith602Feb 17, 2012
Median income is, "by definition", a poor indicator because wealth skews so high at the top and bunches (relative to million/billionaires) at the bottom.
Say you take someone who earns $10,000,000, plus 98 working class families with household incomes around $40,000, plus one homeless guy at $0. That spits out a median income of $139,200. Hardly indicative of the population at hand, because compared to $10,000,000, the $40k might as well be zero.
True "middle" income is around $43,000. Here are some better stats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Distribution
jtsmith602Feb 17, 2012
Wait, no, I'm an idiot.
unclefireFeb 17, 2012
lol-- Why did you write that you're an idiot?
The table in that article shows 50th percentile in 2009 at $49.7k. Census shows 2011 median at $49.4k
Regardless, my point was that the roughly half of all households who pay zero income tax are NOT necessarily poor. Many are by definition middle class.
And your example isn't exactly representative. we're not talking a handful of people, calculating median is over a population of $100MM+
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
Wow.......you're really bad with statistics. What you described was "average income" not "median income".
If there are 100 people, the "median income" is the income of person #50 which would be $40,000 in your example. Median removes the outliers and prevents it from doing exactly what you tried to describe.
hibby76Feb 24, 2012
Funny that people give you "thumbs downs" for stating simple facts. Silly liberals!
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
So poor people stay poor and middle class people become poor because of taxes?
........look around, rethink this, then try again.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
Yep, that's the 'talking point' on FOX. How much wealth (of the total in America) does that 46% own? This keeps coming up. Do they pay 'no taxes' or is this just 'federal taxes'? Personally, I want the whole conversation around taxation to end (perhaps a modified flat tax).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitFeb 16, 2012
About 2.5%
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
And we pay most of the taxes the federal government collects.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
Yes, and the fact that many Republicans seem to have 'no concern' regarding that 2.5% is what I find very unappealing.
slang4catFeb 16, 2012
You want more things? Work for it.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
Yes, slang. There is the 'more thoughtless' commentary held by some Republicans. It's all about 'wanting something for nothing'. Are you indicating that 46% of the country is simply not willing to work?
hackwrenchFeb 16, 2012
Why, when I'd rather buy/build/does it really matter which a machine to do the work for me. And that's what the rich have, a machine to do the work for them. Then there's the scam that says that investing to build the product is more valuable than the money used to purchase said products, so much so that in addition to the potential reward that is the investor's purpose in investing in the first place, the government should reward the investment even more by taxing that potential reward less. On top of that, there's the scam that says that there shouldn't be a division between the amount the company earns and the amount the investors earn such that it is called "taxed twice" while there should be a division between the money the company makes and the amount the workers earn so that there isn't the same notion of being taxed twice.
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
If you buy car stereos with credit cards instead of stocks, you're probably not going to have a high net worth.
Why is that the governments job to fix that "problem" of people wanting stereos more than assets?
JustSayNoPartyFeb 21, 2012
@hibby. Thus, you make my point. I see a country where almost half the population controls an incredibly small amount of the wealth. Long term, I don't see this as sustainable in terms of having a 'word leading' economy. You, on the other hand, seem to write it off as some personal failings of that 46%.
I'll grant you the fact that 'personal responsibility' plays a big part in this story. But going forward, we all should be concerned about a 'strong middle class' where the vast majority of wealth is not controlled by 1 percent of our country. I see the government's role being front and center in terms of focusing on an ever expanding wealth gap. How this focus plays out is the story of course.
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
"And we pay most of the taxes the federal government collects."
Who are "we"? The top 1% accounts for about 13% of the income but pays 26% of the taxes. the bottom 50% accounts for about 13% of the income but pays only 2.5% of the taxes.
Additionally, if someone somewhere becomes a billionaire, how does that hurt me???
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
"we" being who? The rich make about 16% of the money and pay about 32% of the taxes. The bottom 50% make about 13% of the money and pay about 2.5% of the taxes.
So who are you referring to when you say "we pay most of the taxes"???
geejayeFeb 16, 2012
"he bottom 46% don't pay s**t at all"
I agree - those earning minimum wage should be paying FEDERAL taxes (they currently ARE paying their limited dollars to payroll taxes, state taxes, local taxes, property taxes, etc, etc etc).- BECAUSE THEY SHOULD BE GETTING A LIVING WAGE.
"The earned-income tax credit is the main reason those with low incomes are largely exempted from federal income taxes. Originated by Gerald Ford, it was expanded by both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as a better way to help the working poor than raising the minimum wage," http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes-legally/
So -because the minimum wage is not a living wage, those earning minimum wage pay no FEDERAL taxes - and we, the taxpayers, have to kick in "entitlements" to help them not starve.
Therefore, the Walmart corporations of the world get richer and richer on the backs of dirt cheap labor, while we the taxpayers get less taxes from this cheap labor, AND have to give "entitlements" so this cheap labor doesn't starve to death.
Ultimately - it is corporate welfare. The rich get richer - on the backs of the poor and dwindling middle class.
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
So the dude that mows my lawn for $15 per week........am I somehow obligated to pay him a "living wage"? The fact is that there is a supply and a demand for labor. If you want to be paid more, do something to increase your demand.
Should we have a "minimum price for milk"?
Should we have a "minimum price for gas"?
Should we have a "minimum price for cereal"?
.......so why should we have a minimum price for labor? What if I have a job that I would like to do (and someone would like to do it) but I can't pay them the "minimum price"? They end up with no work at all.
johnomazzFeb 17, 2012
So, A person makes 10,000 a year and pays say 30% in taxes. So they take home 7,000 and pay out 3,000. Another person makes 1,000,000 and pays out 30% also. They end up taking home 700,000 and pays out 300,000 in takes. I'm pretty sure you survive on 700k a year quite easily. But surviving on 7k a year...ya...not so much. The problem is that the person that makes 1 million a year usually ends up paying far less than the percentage that someone making 10k a year does. For someone who takes home 7k, an extra $50 a month is a big deal. You think someone taking home 700k would care about 50k.
ShovelbabyFeb 17, 2012
Incorrect.
"The middle 20% of income earners pay taxes at an average rate of just 2.3%. The next highest 20% pay at an average rate of only 6.1%.
Even when you include payroll taxes, the effective rate for families in the middle of the income spectrum is less than 13%, according to data from the Tax Policy Center.
IRS data, meanwhile, show that families with incomes of between $50,000 and $100,000 paid an average 8.9% in income taxes, while those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 paid an average 12.7%."
http://news.investors.com/Article/598186/201201181847/myths-about-romneys-15-tax-rate.htm
Closed AccountFeb 19, 2012
Wow, you think the bottom 46% don't pay taxes? That's ridiculously far from true, EVERYONE pays some form of tax. Unless you're talking about ignoring the vast majority of taxes paid and focus solely on federal taxes, in which case even the richest can get away with paying less than their fair share (remember Romney's tax rate was 15% in 2010).
But let's remember 75% of the country pays more in payroll taxes, medicare taxes and social security taxes than they do federal taxes. And don't forget about sales tax, something that would only be a concern for the poor.
And while we're defending those rich folks at the top it is also good to keep in mind that 92% of Americans said they'd rather live in a country with Sweden's wealth distribution. Further this study also demonstrated that people vastly underestimated wealth inequality in America. Americans believe the top 20% should own only 32% of the wealth, even though they actually own around 84% of the wealth in this country. I'd hazard a guess that more than likely you aren't even aware just how badly the system has broken.
And when you actually get the facts on the issue, suddenly the people who own 84% of all the money in this country paying about a third of the countries taxes sounds like an obscenely low amount. While the bottom 80% struggle to get a meager piece of the 16% of wealth left in America, you want them to pay more in taxes then they already do? Talk about misplace priorities.
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
"But let's remember 75% of the country pays more in payroll taxes, medicare taxes and social security taxes than they do federal taxes."
Of course they do.....2/3rds of them pay $0 per year in Federal income tax. Not hard to pay more than $0 is it.......
linuxpersonFeb 16, 2012
If you love socialism so much, why not consider a move to the socialist bastion of Somalia? I hear two decades of socialist party rule worked out real well for them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
duncan202Feb 16, 2012
Awesome.
drunkclamFeb 16, 2012
You're a f**king moron and should be banned from digg.
markglFeb 16, 2012
You should be for thinking socialism is cool.
linuxpersonFeb 17, 2012
11 diggs for suggesting that people who say factual things that you don't agree with should be banned. Being pro-censorship is so liberal and progressive these days!
And yes, that was a factual statement. Somalia was ruled by socialists for nearly two decades until it collapsed into a hell hole of poverty and civil war.
roguegeniusFeb 18, 2012
Whow. While I'm the first to agree the Linix is a dolt, nobody needs banned from digg.
If he is wrong, just correct him -- that's what I do, almost daily.
CaptainobliviousFeb 16, 2012
You live in a socialist country we have been a socialist country since FDR...
markglFeb 16, 2012
Yeah and we still today are fighting back all this socialist crap that continues to pour in from Obama and the other socialist.
CaptainobliviousFeb 17, 2012
Please explain to me what "socialist crap" Obama has "poured" onto you. And to make things interesting try responding without repeating something you heard on fox news. You may be wondering how I know you watch fox news. Its because you are regurgitating the same crap that only seems to come from them.
I mean honestly, and im not trying to be dick, to have that point of you, you would have to believe that ruport murdoch, an australian, is a bastion of truth fighting the evil forces of liberalism in the united states. Against the will of every other media company and all 3 branches of government. Because how could they stand by and let socialism take over the united states? Which would mean everyone except news corp owned media is lying. Are you insane, or have you just not thought it through?
markglFeb 17, 2012
The ones that we fund 70% of our taxes with. Those ones. But you already know the answer to that question. That socialist crap.
And Obamacare coming soon to a town near you. We just can't wait for that pile of steam to make it's way here.
linuxpersonFeb 17, 2012
What an ignorant thing to say. The US is not a socialist economy and it is not a capitalist economy either. Rather the US is a mixed controlled economy.
Educate yourself.
CaptainobliviousFeb 17, 2012
mixed with what? Socialism. I never said entirely socialist. But we thankfully, have several social programs in this country that provide safety nets to those who are struggling. Which, if trends continue the way they have, will be most people. If everyone ends up on welfare because there are no jobs all of a sudden you live in a socialist country, without making any changes to economic structure.
My comment was to highlight how unnessesary it is to fear anything that slightly resembles socialism. We live in a society, if you would rather not have any of your money help anyone else I would reccommend moving to iran or pakistan. You can live there and not give a s**t about anyone else all you want.
linuxpersonFeb 17, 2012
"mixed with what? Socialism. I never said entirely socialist. But we thankfully, have several social programs in this country that provide safety nets to those who are struggling. "
Which of our social safety nets are the result of socialistic policies?
Social security has nothing to do with the means of production, it's nothing more than a government run savings account. The money that is paid out goes to individuals who will invariably use it buy things from corporations.
Other than perhaps some of the regulatory aspects, Medicare/Medicaid has nothing to do with the means of production either. Government takes money via taxes and gives it out for individuals to pay hospitals or drug companies (again, corporations) for goods and service. One might argue that the VA Hospital is an example of socialism as the funding and the means of production are controlled via government. But even that isn't really socialism because virtually every product the VA Hospital uses is made by a corporation.
Food stamps have nothing to do with the means of production either. Food stamps are again funded via taxation and provide individuals a means to buy things from grocery stores which are, again, almost always corporations. Hell, even my local farm market is incorporated.
I challenge you to name one socialist social program in this country.
What you and others fail to understand is that the United States economy is more akin to a crony capitalist economy or one based largely on corporatism. Think of all the examples I just listed above, they are all examples of government redistributing wealth to help individuals buy goods and services from corporations. That is not socialism. Socialism would be government redistributing wealth while also owning the means of production of a broad scale, we do not have that.
What you are observing is the corporate take over of government. Like I said, educate yourself.
"My comment was to highlight how unnessesary it is to fear anything that slightly resembles socialism. We live in a society,"
I don't fear any "ism" at all so long as it doesn't involve the idea that the initiation of aggressive force against a peaceful person should be state sponsored or legal. If you want to setup your own socialist enclave, feel free to do so, just don't involve me or other civilized adults.
"if you would rather not have any of your money help anyone else I would reccommend moving to iran or pakistan. You can live there and not give a s**t about anyone else all you want.""
I've donated more to charity than you will probably gross in your entire life. Feel free to patronize me all you want, it doesn't validate your ignorant uneducated drivel.
If you are so dead set on the idea that socialism is good and great I recommend you move to Somalia. It only took two decades of outright socialist party rule to turn that place into a civil war torn hell hole.
CaptainobliviousFeb 17, 2012
@linuxperson
So wait obama isnt turning this country into a socialist one, with all his socialist programs? You should talk with some of the other conservatives on here. and congrats on being so charitable. Now if we could just get you to stop being so condescending and arrogant. But I guess that comes with all the "hard work"
linuxpersonFeb 19, 2012
"So wait obama isnt turning this country into a socialist one, with all his socialist programs?"
As far as I can tell, no. He is doing nothing more than continuing the corporatist tradition.
"You should talk with some of the other conservatives on here."
I have corrected many conservatives such as yourself on several occasions regarding the definition of basic political terms.
"and congrats on being so charitable. Now if we could just get you to stop being so condescending and arrogant. But I guess that comes with all the "hard work""
My condescension is well deserved.
concusionFeb 17, 2012
if you don't like the society we live in, which by its very nature is socialism, then go take your family to the Amazon jungle and live as hunter gatherer for the rest of your life. Stop enjoying the fruits of everyone's tax dollars. Your not the only one who pays for s**t. I should take your attitude. I don't want to pay taxes so you can use roads, I don't want to pay taxes so you can live securely, why the f**k should I do that?
rockyoumonkeysFeb 16, 2012
Amen. Came in here to say that. What a misleading bull**** article this was. This is why gullible people continue to vote republican.
miklkitFeb 16, 2012
Amen.
markglFeb 16, 2012
Keep walking around with your eyes closed.
rockyoumonkeysFeb 16, 2012
Keep supporting the GOP's pretend math.
markglFeb 16, 2012
Reason is not the GOP.
rockyoumonkeysFeb 16, 2012
You are right. "Reason" and "GOP" are completely incompatible terms.
linuxpersonFeb 17, 2012
But mark, anything or anybody who doesn't worship Obama as hero god and savior is a kitten blending baby killer Republican.
It's the new super trendy college kid thing to parrot.
markglFeb 17, 2012
Rock you have no idea what you're talking about right now.
Graf_OrlockFeb 18, 2012
Kitten blending? damnit, I missed that memo. I was still eating democratic babies.
pc25Feb 17, 2012
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm
Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.
According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.
In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
I'm confused! I thought that the rich paid no taxes because of their fancy loop holes and expensive lawyers!
bdbrFeb 16, 2012
Of course, taxes are based on income, not wealth, and according to the article, this group makes 16.9% of the income. But the amount of wealth they already have does affect how much they depend on that income.
I'm not in the top 1%, but I'm in the top 10%. The top 10% pays 70.5% of the taxes, but I don't want poor people paying more taxes so I can pay a little bit less. Because that would just make me an assh**e.
rockyoumonkeysFeb 16, 2012
I'm not against the idea of the wealthy paying taxes on existing wealth. The way I see it, money that the rich are hoarding is money the lower and middle class aren't even able to earn.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
The rich don't "hoard" money as you believe they do. They invest it. They buy companies, bonds, etc which does in turn benefit the rest of us.
Neither money nor wealth are finite. Poor people aren't poor because others are rich. Poor people are poor because they don't produce or deliver things of much value.
You are seriously confused about the way that the world works.
drobyoFeb 16, 2012
According to this chart, which another poster, trying to support you posted:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
The top 1% have 33.8% of the money... so by your logic they should get a tax cut, right?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chassupFeb 16, 2012
A brain is a terrible thing to waste.
SinCityVRWCFeb 17, 2012
Then they should get 90% of govt services.
vegasrudyFeb 17, 2012
Then they should receive 90% of government services.
hiropendragonFeb 17, 2012
Don't forget that we're just talking income taxes. Poor and middle class pay sales tax, property tax, and suffer from an economy with inflation but stagnant wages.
floepieFeb 17, 2012
That's right. The top paying the vast majority of the taxes is not a problem in and of itself. It's a reflection of the vast income disparity that we have not seen before. It's a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself. The fact that fewer are paying the lion's share is not a reason to make the tax code less progressive. We are clearly seeing amongst other possible long-term remedies of the real problem the need for a more progressive tax code.
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
So if McDonalds wants to make more money and sell more hamburgers, the solution is to raise the price of a hamburger to $10, right?
The problem is one of spending, not taxation. If the government confiscated 100% of the income of the wealthy for the next 10 years, it wouldn't begin to address the debt problems that the morons in Washington have created.
floepieFeb 21, 2012
There are all sorts of hidden costs involved when the taxes are low on a per capita basis. Lack of services leads to lower quality of life, lower access to medical care, lower access to emergency services, higher transportation costs, lower demand overall from the ground up, poorer nutrition, higher crime rates, higher anxiety rates, lack of environmental oversight, and the list goes on.
A quick glance at comparative rates clearly shows that the US is near the bottom of all industrial countries in its benefits and non-discretionary spending, while the tax rates (on a per capita basis) are one of the lowest as well.
And, your analysis is very off. If only the government would begin to restore levels of taxation that more adequately reflect the ever growing disparity, while maintaining our already low levels of spending, the debt would indeed be well on its way to being wiped away. You have to keep in mind that the effective tax rates on the very wealthy are indeed significantly lower for the top 1% than they are for the top 40%.
You would probably be first to admit that the top 1% already pays almost half of our taxes, right? If you hit that 1% with, say an effective hike of 25%, for example, to bring it more into line with what the top 40% pay, then you have effectively raised revenues by almost 12% right there.
In fact, it's the current low levels of taxation that will continue to serve as the major contributor to elevating budget deficits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_Budget_Deficit_Assuming_Continuation_of_Policies.png
hibby76Feb 22, 2012
If you look at revenue compared to GDP, it's remained relatively constant (roughly 19%) no matter what the tax rate is. Higher taxes equates to lower GDP, lower taxes equates to higher GDP.
WE CANNOT TAX OUR WAY OUT OF THIS SITUATION. THE PROBLEM IS ONE OF SPENDING, NOT OF REVENUE.
No matter how much we bring in in taxes, the Morons in Washington will spend all of it and more as they try to buy our votes with our own money.
floepieFeb 22, 2012
You're convincing me you like to see everything in black and white. Life is just more nuanced. Spending/taxation won't fix things, no. Rather, we need smart spending that will invest in America and which will facilitate transfer of money off of which will spin extra revenue which can in turn help balance the budget. And, it's the combination of smart spending and a restoration of taxation levels that existed decades ago which will ensure that we get back on track. In combination with smart investment-oriented spending we need to close the leaking bucket that attenuates that money's impact on the economy by closing "free" trade loopholes that would otherwise benefit, amongst others, China.
Look, tax rates have never been lower over the least 30 years. We ALREADY have one of the lowest spending rates in the Western world, EVEN WITH our overly massive military spending. And, we know that over those last 30 years as well that 60% of the GDP growth has gone to only 1%! That sort of inequality leads to tremendous inefficiencies leading to little to no revenue from an ever growing population, namely the other 99%. An added dollar in the hands of anyone in the 99% will have more of an impact than a dollar in the hands of the 1%, not only because of the increased likelihood that that dollar will be spent and put into the enconomy by the 99%, but also due to the lower effective tax rates paid by that 1%. Money that's spent wisely doesn't just evaporate into thin air. And, no, taxation alone won't cover our costs in the immidiate future, but a prudent combination of the two, while leveraging the inevitable cyclical uptick in economic activity, will bring us out this mess for the long haul.
mekongkayakFeb 18, 2012
Ah...but the majority of their income is derived from non work sources: assets whether physical or financial. Considering the gov't spent our money to stop the housing and financial crashes the only reason most of them are doing so well is THE LARGEST GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN HISTORY.
Second homes drive up housing prices, shrinking the spending power of the poor and middle class. Stock investment, while necessary for capitalism, has moved from investments for company growth into shifting income from employees to investors, again shrinking the incomes of working Americans.
The majority of wealth of the 1% is due more to globalization via market & technology advancements. Made possible by gov't intervention in the form of trade negotiations, internet funding, etc. While many of these advancements have benefited most Americans, (like cheaper and better cell phones), wages have stagnated and the ability to fuel the American consumer economy now relies more on borrowing rather than actual income. Again: the 1% benefits from this, but @ the expense of the rest of us.
Moreover part of the wealth has been due to the slashing of benefits and increases in workloads over what previous generations enjoyed, not to mention shifting jobs to dictatorships with little or no labor or environmental regulations.
So while the pie has been enlarged, the 1% have been claiming a larger portion of it, and while most folks enjoy a bigger slice of pie..their portion has shrunk and part of their portion is actually loaned to them by the 1% @ interest.
Since the majority of folks in the media have never work outside an office and also rely on investments for their retirement while working in an environment where wealth is a prerequisite for respect, few are willing to address this issue.
librulklownFeb 19, 2012
They in turn should receive 90% of government services. Right?
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
Actually they make 16.9% of the money (not 90%), so I'm assuming that you're arguing that they pay twice as much as they should?
hibby76Feb 24, 2012
Actually they make 16.9% of the money. So you're very clearly suggesting that they should pay 16.9% of the taxes rather than 36.7% that they pay now, correct?
delphium226Feb 16, 2012
Hey whingenuts, taxes have been at their lowest for decades so stop whining as if people are suddenly trying to 'steal' your pathetic money.
Maybe we should return tax rates to Reagan era rates? What a goddamn thieving socialist he was!
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html
concusionFeb 16, 2012
its perfectly clear to me. They can wield the words "wealth redistribution" and "communism", but really they are just not patriotic. We send young men and woman who risk their lives for this country to war, but the minute the country is down, and requires a little extra, these rich f**ks who are comfortable who no worries about feeding their family and have truck loads of cash sitting in the bank can't sacrifice at all? If your wealthy throwing a stink about an marginal increase in your taxes at a time like this, your a selfish unpatriotic douchebag.
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
If the money is so pathetic, then why all the concern over how much of it someone has?
delphium226Feb 17, 2012
What 'concern'? Stop making things up.
mtownFeb 15, 2012
I would expect it to be higher, since the top one-percent also controls much more than 37% of the wealth and makes much more than 37% higher income than nearly all of the 99%.
And In before the trickle-down-BS-theorists show up to bitch and moan, claiming that they are unfairly taxed. Think about it; The reason why you are in the 1% is because you have it better off than 99% of the country, so quit your whining.
Average 1% salary: a little over 700,000
Average Bottom 90% salary: 36,000
Even you got taxed at an 80% tax rate, you'd still make 140,000 a year, over TRIPLE what 90% of the nation makes. Yet you act like it's the end of the world when people propose tax hikes that are a fraction of a percent! And you wonder why people are angry...
hibby76Feb 16, 2012
And you act like you somehow have a right to someone else's money, earnings, work, and property. News flash: IT IS THEIRS NOT YOURS OR "OURS".
You also pretend that you can milk people for unlimited resources and there won't be any sort of consequence or backlash. Completely delusional.
I have a proposal: How about we pass a law that requires you to give me 80% of your earnings.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CaptainobliviousFeb 16, 2012
You're right, 100% of what they make is theirs, just like 100% of what I make is mine. Why do they get to keep more of it? Because they make more? How does that make sense? Wouldnt it make more sense if the general population, who actually needs the money, got to keep more of what they earned?
Not to mention the fact that the only reason they make so much is because we buy the crap they are selling. Please no one wants to take any more from them than is taken from us. Believing otherwise is a result of propaganda.
"Theirs not yours or ours" Please how brainwashed do you have to be to protect someone who could care less if you lived or died if it cost them a fraction of a percent of there very expendable income.
You're absolutely right, you cant milk people for unlimited resources without consequence.
hibby76Feb 16, 2012
"Wouldnt it make more sense if the general population, who actually needs the money, got to keep more of what they earned? "
Workers show up do a job and leave. They don't invest capital. They don't risk their money. They don't own the company.
Show me the workers that will work for free for a few years until a company is profitable and then they'll share the earnings along with the owners..........doesn't happen very often.
Feel free to practice what you preach by starting a profitable company and overpaying all of your workers. What's stopping you?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
brucedogFeb 16, 2012
What risk? The banks got bailed out and the top executes still got bonuses.
aanrFeb 16, 2012
That argument might work if the "1%" was made up with just bankers.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
So you're arguing that no company ever goes out of business??? You and I both hate crony capitalism. Well funded businesses fail every day.
david4041Feb 17, 2012
Go to almost any strip mall. You'll see "For Lease" signs where businesses used to be. Go to the bankruptcy courts, as well. For every business that went out of business, there is probably someone who signed a personal guarantee for the five year lease.
I doubt there were any entrepreneurs in the Occupy Wall Street camps. These people don't understands what it takes to start a business. Putting up the house to get a loan to start the business. Paying for tenant improvements. Paying workers comp and liability insurance. Paying for a payroll company, accountants, lawyers, etc. Working late into the night doing the books. Trying to collect accounts payable.
CaptainobliviousFeb 16, 2012
I think your talking about salary, I was referring to tax rate... The less you make the more of your money gets taxed. Please explain to me how that fair? Especially when the people who come up with these tax rates are the ones benefiting from them.
ikorkyiFeb 16, 2012
by structure, the more you make the more you get taxed in terms of straight out earned income without deductions.
when people say the rich pay more, they're referring to the fact that much of their "income" isn't earned income, its capital gains from investments or stock options. In this case, capital gains are taxed at 15%.
So someone who makes $50,000/yr probably spends most of it, and 100% of it is taxed at their tax rate (let's say 25% with deductions).
Someone who makes $200,000/yr but also makes $50,000/yr in capital gains from investments will be taxed, say, 28% on income with deductions and 15% on capital gains - yielding a lower "overall" tax rate.
the inequity isn't with high wage earners - it's with people who don't make most or all of their money as income.
david4041Feb 17, 2012
But the person probably paid income taxes on the money that he later used to make his investments.
There is another reason for a lower capital gains tax. Let's say a guy buy a stock and the stock increases in value 5% every year. Let say he sells after 20 years. Let's keep the math simple and say that he's doubled his money. Even though he's only made 5% each year on the stock, is it fair that he has to pay the highest tax rate? That one justification for long term capital gains.
ShovelbabyFeb 19, 2012
The rate schedule is higher at higher rates. Sometimes people talk about the capital gains tax instead of the income tax (apples and oranges), but even if you lump it all together, the rich are still paying a higher rate after everything including all deductions, etc. are taken into account.
"The middle 20% of income earners pay taxes at an average rate of just 2.3%. The next highest 20% pay at an average rate of only 6.1%.
Even when you include payroll taxes, the effective rate for families in the middle of the income spectrum is less than 13%, according to data from the Tax Policy Center.
IRS data, meanwhile, show that families with incomes of between $50,000 and $100,000 paid an average 8.9% in income taxes, while those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 paid an average 12.7%."
http://news.investors.com/Article/598186/201201181847/myths-about-romneys-15-tax-rate.htm
skribbleFeb 16, 2012
That's a silly, loaded, very short sighted argument. Genrally workers don't have enough money left over after feeding their families and paying their mortgage to invest. This is by design. The system is set up so those who are blessed with being born into a higher standard of living have the extra income to invest and remain in that bracket. those who don't, don't.
Henry Ford (smart man, that one) made sure to pay his workers just enough to buy Ford's (thus increasing demand for Fords and making himself wealthier). But not enough to break away.
Yes there are exceptions. There are people who work harder and save more, and of those a lucky few make it. These people should be celebrated. (Though hard work and savings isn't the silver bullet it used to be).
Finally, when rich americans pay more taxes, and that tax money is used domestically, rich americans tend to get richer. It's a win win.
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
" those who are blessed with being born into a higher standard of living have the extra income to invest and remain in that bracket. those who don't, don't. "
Bulls**t. Steve Jobs was adopted by a poor family.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hackwrenchFeb 16, 2012
Who told you they were poor? What makes you think it is true.
Define "poor". According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Early_life_and_education
"Paul Jobs, a machinist for a company that made lasers, taught his son rudimentary electronics and how to work with his hands.[1] Clara was an accountant"
Not the %1, but hardly poor person jobs.
drich255Feb 16, 2012
Henry Ford effectively more than doubled the wage of all his employees. Very generous. How is that a bad thing? Yes, he wanted to expand his customer base -- but they were not forced to buy cars with their raises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford#The_five-dollar_workday
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
Those Ford workers probably worked there because it was the best opportunity for them. So what was their second-best opportunity???
Those workers were free to work there, free to take a better job, free to start a company of their own, or free to stay there.
Feel free to start a company where everyone gets paid $100k per year. If it works, you'll be wildly successful. If it doesn't, you may become a capitalist and a fiscal conservative.
skribbleFeb 17, 2012
Whoa there... where do I imply anything negative about Henry Ford? (Not that there weren't some negative things about the guy personally). In fact most conservatives entirely miss the point that Ford understood... that in a capitalist society, the wealthy's livelihood is dependent on the masses earning enough money to consume products thus stimulating growth in the very things that the wealthy make money from. The current social and economic policies of the GOP is to form a two class system which is unsustainable since by eliminating the middle class, the wealthy class will no longer have consumers to buy their goods causing a landslide effect that will further separate the two classes eventually leading to a total implosion of our society.
I have no problem with capitalism... I'm a fan of it. this is why I'm concerned about so called conservatives total lack of realization how it really works. It thrives on a strong stable consumer base and the current conservative thinking is destroying that base.
ShovelbabyFeb 19, 2012
"when rich americans pay more taxes, and that tax money is used domestically, rich americans tend to get richer. It's a win win."
When Americans who are seeking the American dream generate new products and ideas, start businesses in their basement, build a better mousetrap, open up a corner restaurant or drycleaner, invest in new business ideas, expand manufacturing, provide energy, find new ways to produce more faster, these things provide jobs in the US, get exported to other countries to bring more money in the US and grow the US economy and all Americans tend to get richer. America as a free, moral country that enjoys wealth has also been the most generous nation on the planet both domestically and abroad (private charitable donations). That's a win win.
Our country was set up so that any person has an equal shot to become rich or poor and they are supposed to be able to enjoy or suffer the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, we have strayed from these original principles, but we are stil closer than any other country.
agmlauncherFeb 16, 2012
"Why do they get to keep more of it? Because they make more?"
You actually seem to have it backwards I'm afraid. Please look at the chart in this article:
http://media.reason.com/mc/tcavanaugh/taxsharetabletaxfoundation.jpg?h=278&w=525
As you can see, the top 1% has 16.9% of the AGI, yet shoulders 37% of the total taxes at an effective tax rate of 24%. So I'm not sure where you get off saying "why do they get to keep more of it", when the fact is that they don't.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
norman619Feb 16, 2012
Because they make more AND they can hire tax lawyers than help them find the loopholes.
agmlauncherFeb 16, 2012
norman, you are inventing a problem that statistically has no backing. If you look at the chart in that article, that is what the IRS ACTUALLY collected. That's not "in theory". The IRS ACTUALLY gets 37% of its revenue from 1% of tax returns, and that 1% accounts for 16.7% of the income earned in the US.
You have to provide facts that say either the IRS is lying about how much money they make, or that they're lying about how much money the top 1% makes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
Yet they still pay twice as much in taxes compared to their income while people like yourself are claiming that 2x more isn't their "fair share".
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
They earn 16% of the money yet pay 37% of the taxes. Sounds like their lawyers suck.
The bottom 50% on the other hand make 13% of the money and pay 2.5% of the taxes. They must have some very tricky and fancy lawyers!
CaptainobliviousFeb 16, 2012
Right that would be ideal if they actually paid that... Alot of people in that top 1% find ways of paying no federal income tax at all....
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2010/12/14/High-Earners-Who-Dont-Pay-Taxes.aspx#page1
No one is trying to take anything from anyone that they did not earn. I think most people just wanted the tax rate to be fair. If you are going to cut taxes, cut them for everyone and you wont have this problem.
What is the problem with a flat tax?
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
That chart in the article is talking about the income that is COLLECTED. The people that pay $0 in taxes are actually very rare. Name a few.
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
The top 1% earns 16% of the money and pays 37% of the taxes. You've identified a handful of outliers.......congratulations. They still shoulder the tax burden of America.
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
Because he is saying it's not fair that they keep more cash, even if they are taxed at a higher percentage.
Wonder how he wuld feel if the guy working the counter at mcdonalds felt he should have to give up more of his income.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hackwrenchFeb 16, 2012
That's "earned income" not "capital gains".
agmlauncherFeb 16, 2012
No. You are wrong. It is AGI - Adjusted Gross Income, which includes all wages, salaries, interest, and capital gains.
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
Careful.........many here people don't like facts. Facts hurt their feelings.
mu5qularFeb 16, 2012
"
Not to mention the fact that the only reason they make so much is because we buy the crap they are selling. Please no one wants to take any more from them than is taken from us. Believing otherwise is a result of propaganda."
They provide us with a service or product. And in return we should ask for hand outs?
Basically you buy an iPad for $500 from apple. And apple should pay that right to the government. I know you didnt mean it literally but honestly that's not a system that works.
If the government took 80% of someones money that they worked hard for. What would be the point of working so hard the next year.
And guess what the super rich also buy the same crap we do plus super expensive stuff that we get paid to make. If you take away their money and no one is building houses and buy yachts jobs are lost.
I work out and stay in shape. Should I be forced by the government to donate more blood than a unhealthy person. I have health to spare? No. Yes there are situations and circumstances where health isn't a choice and isn't just lack of effort, but I shouldn't be forced to part with more Heath than another. I know how to use and share my blood better than the government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CaptainobliviousFeb 16, 2012
Who said anything about 80% taxes? How is a flat tax that everyone has to pay a handout? If I can use my wealth to circumvent paying my share of taxes thats a problem. They had a tax cut for 10 years and still found ways of not paying it at all.
And in your scenario we would be taking blood from sick people and giving the healthiest people loop holes to not donate any blood at all. Which is proof that you actually dont know how to share your blood because you are human and you would rather watch the rest of the world die than risk donating any more of your precious blood than you absolutely needed to.Thats a gross oversimplification of a much bigger issue btw.
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
I bet you're one of those people that looks at how much $ the US spends on defense and compares it to how much $ another country does, rather than comparing to GDP or another balanced equation...Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
delphium226Feb 16, 2012
Funny, past conservative administrations taxed upper and lower band earners more than they're taxed now. I guess they must have all been greedy socialists trying to steal your f**king money.
hibby76Feb 16, 2012
We haven't had a fiscal conservative in office for a very, very long time.
delphium226Feb 16, 2012
Yet when a dem is in office, with the lowest tax rates for years, conservatives suddenly start screaming how unfair it all is.
drich255Feb 16, 2012
Conservatives do push for lower taxes. But it isn't just that, they also fight against tax hikes (which is in President Obama's current budget proposal).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ShovelbabyFeb 19, 2012
The only additional cutting that has been done is a minor reduction to a tax that is supposed to fund social security. There have been increases in several taxes (http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-obama-tax-hikes-a6433) under Obama, but even with that, the only complaints I hear is more about new rate hikes being proposed.
The other sneaky tax that you don't really hear about much is inflation. With all the quantitative easing that our government is doing, they are devaluing our dollar fast.
CaptainobliviousFeb 16, 2012
Exactly, now you understand the problem. Half the country keeps voting these liars in there thinking they are "fiscally conservative" And then they get screwed over after election time. They had a chance with ron paul and they blew it....
miklkitFeb 16, 2012
Ayup. Not since the 1990's.
drich255Feb 16, 2012
I don't think so. Check the numbers.
If we are talking income tax, the top rate under Reagan was ultimately lowered to about 28%. Under Clinton it was raised it to almost 40%. Under President Bush (43) it was lowered to 35% (and all the brackets were lowered -- not just the top bracket).
As for the lowest bracket, it's most recent lowest point is 10% under President Bush (43).
And President Obama does get credit for not letting those rates expire (yet).
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
"IT IS THEIRS NOT YOURS OR "OURS".
This ignores a system that leads to even much more of 'theirs'. Yes, some earn their wealth honestly. But, we have a system that rewards those individuals (special interests, lobbying, etc) at the detriment of everyone else. Thus, not good enough to simply say 'It's theirs'. If you keep saying that when 99% of the country is living in the lower class and 1% has all the wealth, I'll be glad to drive you around our country and show you the wondrous impacts.
As for taxation though, that's not the place to address the inequality.
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
They ARE earning their wealth honestly. What you are saying you want is the government to be more dishonest in taking more money.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
You can not say, as a collective, that they are or are not earning their wealth honestly. There's a reason Washington is awash with lobbyists. In my opinion, the game is rigged to favor the 'already wealthy'. Do many earn their money honestly? I don't doubt that. But overall, I believe we have a system that plays favorites. And, it's not favorites benefiting the middle and lower classes.
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
I would agree. And the best thing you can do to stop that is to vote out everybody in Congress and replace them. Don't stick with a party line. Go with those that actually meet your expectations and appear most likely to work to stop the status quo.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
Agreed. That's why I'm a Ron Paul supporter. If we get a choice between Romney or Obama, it will be 'politics as usual'. How's that working out?
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
I think Paul is the best of the bunch, but I don't agree with all of his ideas. Thankfully, that is what Congress is there for.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
Politicians give lobbyists and corporations way too much power........agreed.
That doesn't change the fact that if someone works hard, builds a company, and become wealthy, the wealth is theirs. It doesn't belong to the government, the people, or "us".
Do you realize that you're likely part of the 1% of the world? So should the UN come in and pilfer 80% of your wealth because, after all, you'd still have thousands more than the average earthling.
hackwrenchFeb 16, 2012
And you act like the %1 have the incontestable right to do whatever they do to make other people's money their money without any scrutiny whatsoever, and that no one else has the right to do what they do, all at the same time having no clue what it is they do.
Because "your" money ALWAYS starts out as someone else's money, and there is a continuum of ways ranging from honest to dishonest to get people to part from their money.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
Did I say that?
They are free to buy, sell, and trade as long as they're not violating laws or harming others. People often point out criminal behavior and declare that it is a sign that capitalism doesn't work. Don't confuse criminal activity with capitalism.
Theft occurs in many ways. If an employee is wasting his time at work, that is theft. If an employer is forcing extra hours, that is theft. What we need is a system that embraces human nature and self-interest rather than denying the fact that it exists.
hackwrenchFeb 17, 2012
You mean the same way that he didn't say he was entitled to other people's money?
linuxpersonFeb 16, 2012
The top 1% pay more than Federal income taxes, thus their overall effective tax rate is much higher.
You also failed to address the key point this article raises, likely because you didn't read it, which is that raising rates for the top 1% doesn't guarantee higher revenue.
Tax rates and revenues do no share a linear correlation, got it?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
benjie25Feb 16, 2012
That really rich billionaire guy says his tax rate is lower than his secretary's. Even he thinks it's unfair.
aanrFeb 16, 2012
If he is so worried about her paying such a low tax rate why not help her get into a higher tax bracket so she can pay more?
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
Actually, I like this train of thought. But not just Buffet. Our focus should be more on raising up people and rebuilding the middle class. For me, this constant argument over taxation gets us off the real needed focus.
On a side note, does it concern you that we have a growing income divide with a dwindling middle class?
CaptainobliviousFeb 16, 2012
Not paying attention to trends is a big reason we got into this economic mess in the first place. When the 1% owns 99% they will understand how important trends and momentum are. But im sure they will find a way to get poor people to blame homeless people.
linuxpersonFeb 16, 2012
Yet he pays hundreds of times more in taxes, weird.
The average millionaire pays about double the effective Federal income tax rate of the average earner. That's a fact, own up to it.
mtownFeb 16, 2012
Its the percentage that's important, not the overall amount.
And "pays double the effective rate" doesn't matter at all if they they are making hundreds, if not thousands of times more money than the "average earner".
linuxpersonFeb 17, 2012
Of course it matters smart guy. More income at a higher rate results in an exponentially greater sum of money being contributed in taxes.
You need to take a basic tax accounting class for god sakes. What are they teaching you kids in college these days? Basic arithimatic?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aadyssFeb 16, 2012
Obama was in the 35% category but paid 26%. Where did the other 9% go?
Obama's wants to roll back oil and gas “tax preferences” worth $40 billion over 10 years. I'm looking forward to paying more for my automobile gasoline and gas to heat my home and water.
Obama wants the federal employees to pay more into their pension funds. Who does he think he is..Scott Walker?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitFeb 16, 2012
You made the rules and now you complain when people play by those rules.
Walker does not play by the rules. Witness the number of his closest people getting busted.
aadyssFeb 16, 2012
I'm complaining? Obama's complaining about people who do what he is doing. (Paying no more than required by law) I'm all in for the 15% dividend and long term capital gains tax that exists now for everyone and as long as it stays that way, no complaints from me.
Why doesn't Obama pay more than he currently owes? Does he have to pass a law to force himself to pay more? That's weird, don't you think?
Why don't we make paying federal income tax optional? How much do you think the government would take in? Probably nothing from Obama...and most everyone else.
The number of Walker's closest people getting busted? Oh, I forgot. Democrats are currently going through the canonization process for sainthood.
Obama wants the federal employees to put more into their pension funds. Now, that is upsetting a lot of Democrats on the hill. Next thing we know Obama will start quoting FDR about collective bargaining and the federal employees.
Who said, “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.”
“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” George Meany AFL-CIO 1955.
“In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress — a right available to every citizen.” AFL-CIO executive council 1959.
Up through the 1950s, unions widely agreed that collective bargaining had no place in government.
But in comes the 'new normal' and that's working really well. If the Wisconsin voters wish to create an elite class of people (government employees) who they pay for and have no say in the compensation and benefits, I don't care. For me, I'd be leaving Wisconsin pretty quickly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
deputydonFeb 16, 2012
http://imageshack.us/f/825/ronpaulincometax.jpg/
With Paul's plan we wouldn't have had to bailout GM because GM could have cut salaries across the board by 5%, and their employee would have still seen a 10-15% GROSS income increase.
Now imagine zero federal income tax throughout the entire country? We would all have far more money than we do now. And it's very, very possible. The United States would also see the greatest jump of insourcing jobs that our country has ever seen. The unemployment rate would drop amazingly quick.
Instead, most Americans are too worried about starting wars with countries that either hate us because we are trying to occupy their land, or they have zero problems with us, but a middle man country is 'trying' to convince us to be their allies for the war they want to start. Israel has said so many times that they don't need our help, and they don't even really want it. But when you're just giving away money, why not take it? The foreign aid we give Israel is less than .5% of their national defense budget. So why are we giving it to them? They aren't going to be wiped off the planet because of .5% of their budget isn't there anymore.
And most Americans depend on federally regulated departments. Why? Like the department of energy? The DOE gets sued by Americans for billions of dollars collectively a year. Where does that money come from to pay those Americans? Us. The government gives our hard earned money to the DOE because they screwed up on something, and WE pay their court fees/settlements. It's absolutely ridiculous.
The Department of Education is a complete joke, and our young college students are finding themselves so deep in debt that they might never be able to pay it off, especially not if they can't find a job when they graduate.
And just to top it off, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3ivrynAFP0. That link clearly explains that there was voter/election fraud going on in Maine. With FACTS. Not just biased opinions, but actual FACTS. It's shocking what real news journalists can so easily find. Instead we just have News REPORTERS these days. They 'report' (which really means give their biased opinion, which they aren't supposed to do) the 'correct' (meaning usually wrong) 'facts' (made up figures).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aadyssFeb 16, 2012
Yes, being an American all I think about is war. I dream it, I breath it, I taste it.
I was in debt in the 60s from college. Eventually paid it off.
The college graduates will never be able to find a job...ever. It's just HORRIBLE! Jobs are gone forever. After I got out of college I started a job at $78.00 a month. Of course that was while I was in basic training. In a few months I was up to $145.00 monthly. Wow!! Lookin' good.
Join the military and have the government pay for your education. See, a solution for many. Oh, cutting back on the military? Well, that will make the left happy but there will be fewer opportunities for the poorer to receive VA educational benefits since many military positions will be eliminated. Maybe we should start the draft again. See, a solution. Who cares about the deficit? The Dem's say the deficit is no big deal so what's the big deal for you?
Maybe we should just entitle the entire middle class. Those rich have all of the money and if we take the bulk of their money life will be so much better for the rest of the nation. We all know that money buys happiness.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CaptainobliviousFeb 16, 2012
Sending 18 year old boys, to die or be mutilated for nothing is not an "opportunity".
No amount of money is worth the horrors of war. Those poor kids will never be the same.
aadyssFeb 16, 2012
Yes, I have been destroyed. Oh woe, it's all over for me. Since 1968 I have been totally unable to thrive or succeed. Oh, the horror of it all.
I have only been 1/2 a human ever since. Well, the VA did pay for some more educational opportunities for me but I was crazy after the war and couldn't use it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
CaptainobliviousFeb 16, 2012
http://www.cchrint.org/2011/06/04/18-u-s-veterans-commit-suicide-daily-largely-due-to-psychiatric-drugs/
Your flippant attitude towards this matter is borderline treasonous and shows a tremendous amount of ignorance.
aadyssFeb 16, 2012
Well Captain. If you served in a war and are permanently damaged (those boys will never be the same) them I'm sorry. You did serve in a war didn't you?
The soldier in the room next to mine in the Army hospital committed suicide. I know that happens. Others commit suicide also. What are you going to do about that?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
aadyssFeb 16, 2012
It's cute you providing me links for something I personally experienced. It's like I missed it all or something.
mtownFeb 16, 2012
I was in several wars too. And I'm the King of Norway. And Emperor of the Moon.
Look at me, I can claim random stuff on the internet too.
No, I didn't serve in a war, but I have several family members spread across multiple generations that have, and it HAS changed them or is still effecting them. So you are either full of BS and never served, or you did serve but where never deployed (or served on an aircraft carrier or something and never saw legitimate combat). You're kidding yourself if you think that war doesn't have an effect on most people. I'm sure anybody who's actually been in a real firefight would tell you otherwise.
aadyssFeb 17, 2012
mtown,
Whatever you say cutie, You know everything. War may have affected me but not in the way you would desire or think it should be.
aadyssFeb 17, 2012
I forgot.
Great Grandfather..Union Army ,Civil War
Cousin (WWII, 22 years of age)...killed, battle of the Bulge. Remains never recovered.
Uncle (WWII, 21 years of age) ...killed at the Anzio beachhead. Buried south of Rome.
Uncle..(WWII) South Pacific. wounded in action.
Uncle..M.D. U.S. Army...(WWII) South Pacific.
Cousin (Vietnam..wounded in action)
Me (Vietnam..wounded in action)
None affected although my cousin (Vietnam) still attends his unit's reunions. I do not. I mostly remember the dead, not the living. The living I do remember have mostly passed away.
daronicusFeb 17, 2012
Yeah, check what the alcohol tax rate was during those years without income tax. (Hint: it was a lot). The government did not just make do without any revenue before 1913. The taxes just came from other sources, like customs duties.
deputydonFeb 16, 2012
http://imageshack.us/f/825/ronpaulincometax.jpg/
With Paul's plan we wouldn't have had to bailout GM because GM could have cut salaries across the board by 5%, and their employee would have still seen a 10-15% GROSS income increase.
Now imagine zero federal income tax throughout the entire country? We would all have far more money than we do now. And it's very, very possible. The United States would also see the greatest jump of insourcing jobs that our country has ever seen. The unemployment rate would drop amazingly quick.
Instead, most Americans are too worried about starting wars with countries that either hate us because we are trying to occupy their land, or they have zero problems with us, but a middle man country is 'trying' to convince us to be their allies for the war they want to start. Israel has said so many times that they don't need our help, and they don't even really want it. But when you're just giving away money, why not take it? The foreign aid we give Israel is less than .5% of their national defense budget. So why are we giving it to them? They aren't going to be wiped off the planet because of .5% of their budget isn't there anymore.
And most Americans depend on federally regulated departments. Why? Like the department of energy? The DOE gets sued by Americans for billions of dollars collectively a year. Where does that money come from to pay those Americans? Us. The government gives our hard earned money to the DOE because they screwed up on something, and WE pay their court fees/settlements. It's absolutely ridiculous.
The Department of Education is a complete joke, and our young college students are finding themselves so deep in debt that they might never be able to pay it off, especially not if they can't find a job when they graduate.
And just to top it off, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3ivrynAFP0. That link clearly explains that there was voter/election fraud going on in Maine. With FACTS. Not just biased opinions, but actual FACTS. It's shocking what real news journalists can so easily find. Instead we just have News REPORTERS these days. They 'report' (which really means give their biased opinion, which they aren't supposed to do) the 'correct' (meaning usually wrong) 'facts' (made up figures).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ricksiteFeb 16, 2012
So once we start taxing rich people at the 80% rate do we then bail them out when they can't pay the mortgage on their home that they bought before the government started taking 80% of their money?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drobyoFeb 16, 2012
According to this chart, the top 1% actually control 33.8% of the wealth
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
So, they should get a tax cut, right? So that they're only paying 33% of the taxes?
markglFeb 16, 2012
Yeah thats stupid. Sorry but you're insane to be cook with taking 80%+ of something that is someones property.
hibby76Feb 21, 2012
"Even you got taxed at an 80% tax rate, you'd still make 140,000 a year"
BS. When you tax cigarettes, people smoke less. When you tax income, people also make less. They also have a tendency to invest overseas.
etubruteFeb 16, 2012
This article is purposely misleading, the top 1% most of their money does not come from income(capital gains, stocks, investments and overseas accounts). This would be accurate if they got their income like most Americans.
slang4catFeb 16, 2012
So how do you suggest taking their money?
etubruteFeb 16, 2012
Not taking their money, the government takes everyone's money, I don't see why their money is more special and they get away with paying less.
I simply want to revise tax laws and remove loopholes so that they pay their fair share. I don't think it's right that billion dollar corporations pay no taxes and get subsidies.
I don't think it's right that with some creative accounting you can pay less. It's also not right for us to be giving incentive for people to put their money in offshore banking accounts tax free.
slang4catFeb 16, 2012
I'm all for either a fair tax or a flat tax. No loopholes, no deductions, no bulls**t.
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
Billion dollar corporations =/= Wealthy individuals
etubruteFeb 16, 2012
I was referring to the tax code in general, I didn't think I needed to clarify that.
pc25Feb 17, 2012
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm
Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.
According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.
In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
gt777Feb 17, 2012
It doesn't explain why US govt is in the debt of trillions while millions are worth millions and billions! Is this how capitalism works?
pc25Feb 17, 2012
trillions in debt? Gee with legislation like the trillion stimulus and the 500 bill appropriations bill that Obama passed in 2009 you wonder why we are trillions in debt. You need to get some perspective. Social engineering programs like that have actually nothing to do with it.
ShovelbabyFeb 17, 2012
The sad thing about all this hatred being generated for the 1% in order to take more from them is that if they were successful with the US, next they will want to villify the 1% globally and make them cough up more. Guess who is in the 1%? All of the US, so the poor here would be in line to give to the rest of the world. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
slang4catFeb 17, 2012
The funny thing is that over in the Krugman thread, it's the "liberal economic machines" that are generating all the wealth:
http://digg.com/news/politics/moochers_against_welfare#20120217033321:b8abff9561de434da93692d6da987d2d
"Conservative regions are quite simply too stupid to realize that they are the biggest drains on federal tax revenue in America, and if the liberal economic machines in the country (mostly blue states or blue cities) stopped redistributing wealth to them, they'd suddenly find life much, much more difficult."
(Ignore the fact that Wall Street is the center of a blue city withing the center of a blue state.)
ShovelbabyFeb 19, 2012
Good point. This is exactly what happens when you leave redistributing wealth in the hands of other people. There is always somebody who thinks they are being cheated.
bigtimcavanaughFeb 16, 2012
It's been a few days since I wrote this article, and I'm amazed at how much of the argument is about fairness. I'm not deciding whether it's fair or not that the people who (according to Picketty and Saez) control about 20 percent of the wealth pay 37 percent of the taxes. I'm saying that's progressive taxation working at full capacity. You can play all the tricks you want: Raise marginal rates, try and force people to repatriate wealth, throw more Americans in prison, hire more federal agents to poke into more wallets, expand surveillance of financial records. In the end your revenue collections will not change much. It may be fair or it may be unfair that the king can raise taxes on the rich but fail to acquire a notably bigger portion of their wealth. The point is that it is reality. We have decades of tax history, back to sainted FDR himself, to show that.
karmashockFeb 16, 2012
While i have sympathy for reason's position... I would ask what percentage of the national income and what percentage of national wealth are held by those same people?
because if it's less then 37 percent then clearly the taxes are high enough or too high. But if their income/wealth exceeds their tax rate then the taxes might actually be too low.
1 percent paying 37 percent sounds very high. I just wonder if their income in relation to everyone else is so insane that it's actually low.
Just a thought.
bigtimcavanaughFeb 16, 2012
I take anything coming out of Catherine Rampell with a grain of salt, and anything out of Picketty and Saez with an ocean of salt, but according to the former the latter[s] put the <a href="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/about-that-99-percent/">total earning figure of the top 1 percent at 20 percent</a>. I hope that href works and I apologize in advance for quoting unreliable sources.
karmashockFeb 16, 2012
Well in that case, apparently they're paying more then their fair share. It's just sad I guess that the income gap has grown so wide.
It would be nice if people figured out how to close it by helping people make more rather then trying to make some make less. That sort of "equality" just leads to mediocrity.
ren1999Feb 16, 2012
There is no way you can dismiss this. Romney (a poster child of the wealthy U.S. elite) paid 14% of his entire earnings in taxes where the median taxation of total wealth mostly on payroll is 25%. YOU CAN NOT FOOL US. ABC NEWS just reported Rick Santorum paid from a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney.
deputydonFeb 16, 2012
As much as I hate Mitt Romney, what he did was technically following the law. He was unemployed for all of 2011. So the money he made came from investments. The Law technically says that money earned from investments will be taxed at 15%. Then he got deductions from donating to charities and what not. So he ended up with a final tax rate of something like 13.7%
It really just tells us that we don't need to have a higher tax rate for the rich, we need to just enforce what it already is, or drop our dependency on federal income tax all together.
martoqFeb 16, 2012
Just because it's legal...doesn't mean it's right.
rockyoumonkeysFeb 16, 2012
Especially when you consider that he and his company have actively fought against measures that would have closed such loopholes.
theswashbucklerFeb 16, 2012
"what he did was technically following the law."
Yes, he followed the law. The law needs to be changed so that this doesn't happen. Romney wants to change the law so that he pays even less.
miklkitFeb 16, 2012
I'm retired. I'm not working, and my income is my retirement check.
It is taxed as ordinary income at a higher rate than Rmoney pays.
What's up with that?
linuxpersonFeb 16, 2012
Out of curiosity, where does your retirement check come from? 401k, pension, what is it?
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
Really? This was dug down?
linuxpersonFeb 17, 2012
Apparently the liberal bury bridigaide known as the Digg Patriots is targeting me, oh no!!!
More likely some people don't like my efforts to catch mik in an open lie, again.
ren1999Feb 17, 2012
The point is, everyone should pay the same total percentage of their yearly earnings. The unfair tax loopholes and complex tax system that Romney fought for need to be removed.
bigtimcavanaughFeb 16, 2012
Romney's example illustrates the point of the article. Since 1913 Uncle Sam has been trying to find ways to capture more wealth from the wealthy. The government raises and lowers rates, dispatches more tax collectors, "closes loopholes," tries to prevent people and wealth from expatriating, imprisons people, finagles with deductions, etc. All of this causes havoc for people further down the food chain, but it does not increase revenue. We can talk all day about whether that is fair, or what's a fair share of income for people wealthier than yourself. But the point is to raise revenues to fund $3.7 in annual spending and a $15 trillion debt. The entire history of the federal income tax screams the truth that you will not accomplish that goal by raising taxes on the rich. If you want the government to pay for itself (and I do not; I want the federal government to admit bankruptcy), then you have raise taxes on everybody, all the way down to the bottom 50%.
jj33Feb 17, 2012
Disagree. For example, the Bush Tax Cuts are responsible for adding 3.3 Trillion to the national debt over ten years. Keep in mind, those are tax cuts that are only cutting 3% on incomes over 300K of non-investment earnings.
karmashockFeb 17, 2012
That assumes spending wouldn't have gone up by 3.3 trillion over that same period.
If we've learned anything from government... if they have money... they'll spend it. And if they don't have it... they'll borrow it.
Sadly, it seems the only way to control the budget and thus reduce the deficit is to reduce revenue and credit to the point where the government has to control spending because it literally has no choice.
We've been trying to control this problem for decades. To claim it all started with Bush is to ignore the last 100 years.
The budget is always bigger and not only is it bigger but the rate at which it is growing is accelerating while our economic growth is shrinking.
Does that sound sustainable? Double taxes and it still won't be sustainable. Make taxes 100 percent and it will still fail.
Limits must be put on government growth so it grows and shrinks with the economy.
usarugulaFeb 16, 2012
This just in: The Top 1% owns 40% of the nation's wealth.
When percentage of income taxes they pay matches the percentage of wealth they own, I'll stop complaining.
linuxpersonFeb 16, 2012
"When percentage of income taxes they pay matches the percentage of wealth they own, I'll stop complaining."
The problem with your argument is most of the 1% already does pay at least 40% of their income in taxes.
benjie25Feb 16, 2012
No, they pay more like 15%
slang4catFeb 16, 2012
So you'll be happy when they pay exactly 3 more percent?
prevettFeb 16, 2012
Simple way to fix the problem and to be fair: If the top 1% of earners own 90% of the wealth in this country then the top 1% should pay 90% of the income taxes which are collected. This top 1% are the ones who have stripped this country of all manufacturing jobs, and sent them over seas, and have devastated our economy. If you want to sell to the Americans, then you should manufacture what you are selling in America! We outlawed slavery 150 years ago, but yet we allow big business to make use of the slave type of work environments in countries like china. Companies used to pump money back into our economy, and they no longer do that. Instead they make the most profit possible, and return it to a select few. Now wonder why our country is dying.
agmlauncherFeb 16, 2012
You didn't read the article, did you?
The top 1% earns 16.7% of the wealth, yet pays 37% of the country's total income tax, via an effective tax rate of 24%.
According to your theory, they should pay only 16.7% of the taxes - less than half the amount they actually pay.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zero123Feb 16, 2012
This is the first I've seen it denoted that the 1% has 16.7% of the wealth. I've only seen numbers like 40% and greater.
etubruteFeb 16, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States
this is from a quick google search, this is 2007 numbers and the wealth gap has increased even more since then. I am not sure where your numbers are coming from.
miklkitFeb 16, 2012
This is a 2010 article. they have it at under 40%. But they also note that 50% of Americans are trying to get by on just 2.5% of the wealth.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/09/businessinsider-15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4.DTL
linuxpersonFeb 17, 2012
The deflection on this thread is epic.
bcarl314Feb 16, 2012
Where are you getting the 16.7% number from? The closest I see in that article is in the graph that shows 16.9% is the share of the total AGI for the top 1%. Is that what you're referring to? Because that is not wealth, which includes appreciation in assets which have not been realized like stock value changes, real estate changes, etc. The ultra rich hide their wealth so they don't have to realize the gains. Unrealized gains = 0% tax.
unclefireFeb 16, 2012
It is the 16.9% figure. That's their share of the total AGI.
Now, you're full of crap on wealth. Wealth is already taxed. Real estate is taxed while you own it and under certain conditions be taxed when you sell it (as a cap gain). Stock is taxed-- when the gain is realised. The reason its not taxed when there is unrealized gain is b/c that gain varies from day to day-- Do you not invest or understand how stock ownership works? Dividends are taxed (more than once actually). Personal property is taxed (in many places)-- e.g. cars, boats, etc.
Are you suggesting we just tax stuff for the hell of it? If you are--screw you. I already pay a boat-load of taxes on my income and my assets. Hell, let's just start confiscating s**t randomly from people.
God you people are rediculous.
bcarl314Feb 16, 2012
Whew. I was worried I might get a well reasoned rebuttal. Thank goodness digg patriots (r) such as yourself are around. Did you happen to notice you agreed with my assessment? Probably not.
I said nothing about taxing unrealized gains. I simply stated that wealth is different than income. And gains in wealth do not mean gains in income.
Try reading. It will help.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
unclefireFeb 16, 2012
I am not even close to a digg patriot. Fair enough... my bad, I over reacted. But my issue is when people suggest taxing wealth like it isn't taxed already.
linuxpersonFeb 17, 2012
You whine about a made up group of boogymen instead of addressing uncle's very factual comment yet he is the one who isn't giving well reasoned responses?
Try again.
countess666Feb 16, 2012
the top 1% have 42% of the wealth in the nation, and getting bigger.
http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/
so clearly that 16.7% they get of the normal income pie isn't their only source of income.
unclefireFeb 16, 2012
So? How does that justify taxing more?
countess666Feb 16, 2012
if they are getting a ever bigger slice of the countries wealth, then that's just not sustainable.
and we need more tax income, that's clear. and the rich's growing share of income clearly indicates they are best able to bear any tax increases. increases anywhere else would just accelerate the problem of growing income inequality. (income inequality is a fact of life, but growing income inequality should be prevented if at all possible.)
unclefireFeb 16, 2012
Look, I'm part of the top 5-10% in the article you posted. I've worked hard for the past 25+ years to earn more, and more importantly to SAVE by living well w/in my means. My parents were both blue collar workers, I started my career making peanuts but have had significant income growth over the years and have accumulated savings (i.e. wealth). Savings people like me need b/c pension plans are pretty much gone in many places.
We talk about the american dream ad naseum but when somebody achieves it, people like you want to take away more of what we've earned. I already pay a bunch in taxes at every turn.
I'm not in the 1% percent, but it is an easy road to go down to say, ok, now the top 5% or 10% need to pay more now too.
atomheartmotherFeb 16, 2012
If the Progressives realized their wet dream and could somehow tax the "rich" at 100%, that money would only fund the govt for about four months. We don’t have a problem of not enough taxes, we have a problem of too much spending.
jefftsFeb 16, 2012Submitter
Eat the Rich!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=661pi6K-8WQ
Closed AccountFeb 15, 2012
Not this horsesh*t again. All this tells us is the percentage the top 1 pays of all tax revenue *collected*. It doesn't tell us they pay their fair share. Stop acting crazy, cons. ;-(
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
what is the fair share of a persons income?
novenatorFeb 16, 2012
That depends on their income. 90% for billionaires would still leave at least $100,000,000 per year. Most people would consider that more than fair.
hibby76Feb 16, 2012
It's their money not yours or "ours". So getting the government to make robbery and plunder legal is somehow "fair" because they still have a lot left over?
So, a robber and recent immigrant breaks into your house. He holds a gun to you. He forces you to the bank and forces you to withdraw 90K of your 100K retirement. You would argue that this is good and "fair" because after all, he has nothing and you still have $10k left. This is a good thing, right???
spatula7Feb 16, 2012
Are you equating the government to a robber holding a gun to your head? You realize there is an argument that because people pay taxes and because their are programs in place that promote economic growth and development and because their is an infrastructure in place there is the opportunity to become very wealthy and without it, it is much harder and you are much less likely to be very wealthy...but you don't believe that do you?
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
And if you don't pay the mugger, then you go to prison.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
IRS collectors do generally carry firearms. So do the police that arrest you if you don't pay. So do the guards at the prison.
Some government is needed however the governments role was never to steal from one group to give a free ride to another. Part of my faith in the poor comes from watching their utility at exploiting the system. It's almost a full time job for some.......which means if that weren't an option they could have a full time job.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Graf_OrlockFeb 18, 2012
Taxes by the state are implicitly enforced via threat of force. So, the government is comparable to a robber holding a gun to your head.
It doesn't matter if the robber has noble intentions (feeding his family, or feeding 20 million), he's still taking your money with a threat of what happens if you don't hand it over.
novenatorFeb 16, 2012
All wealth is created by the working man (and woman). ALL of it. The lawless capitalism that we have in place simply transfers it to the rich. THAT is plunder. THAT is robbery. We don't have a truly free market and real economic freedom anymore, it's just crony, predatory capitalism that destroys the middle class.
I guarantee you one thing; if we created a wall between the top 1% and everyone in society, the top 1% would literally starve within a year while everyone else would see income and quality of life improvements. They need the working man more than the working man needs them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
Hardly.....
You're assuming that taking risk has 0 value.
You're assuming that invested capital has 0 value.
You're assuming that mutually agreed upon contracts are somehow cooked.
This "war" that you talk about is frankly crazy. The rich would simply take their resources and go elsewhere.
Let's say that the wealthy removed themselves and their industry from the equation. The problem with your reality is that you believe that because they have a lot, you have less. My view is that because they have a lot, all of us have more.
Your utopia doesn't actually exist and can't be created. Greed exists on both ends. If a worker can take his skills elsewhere and get paid more, he can and will. Do you view that as demonic as well?
You think a poorer economy is a better economy with more opportunities? Check out Haiti........not much income inequality there.......is that your dream?
Feel free to start a company where the janitor makes the same wage as a CEO..........and good luck getting a competent CEO.
You're dream isn't a bad one, but it is simply a dream.
ferretmanFeb 19, 2012
@novy - I'm curious -- how did you determine the numbers that YOU feel are "fair"?
kingnovaFeb 16, 2012
I don't know. How many wars do you want to finance?
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
Gulf war 1 and 2 went so well, maybe we could go back for a third, oh wait we actually never left...
The Embassy of the United States in Baghdad is the largest and most expensive of any embassy in the world. At 440,000 square meters it is nearly as large as Vatican City.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Baghdad
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
You are measuring floorspace of a multi level building and comparing it to the amount of land covered by a city.
One tower of the World Trade Center held more office space than most cities.
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
Ridge, imagine if the office had tanks, helicopters, and enough ammo to put two in every person within 500 miles.
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
Are you suggesting the US Embassy is a warehouse to hold weapons?
kcast985Feb 18, 2012
Raising taxes on the rich will lead to income equality. Lmao oh liberals when will you learn.
skibearFeb 17, 2012
Bottom line: People always vote their pocket book. If you're in the bottom 50% that pay no taxes, get lots of tax credits, and you live off the the government "teat" ( Medicare, Social Security, unemployment benefits, Medicaid, food stamps, union worker for company that was bailed out with millions of tax payer dollars that you don't happen to contribute to, government employee with fat pension and all holidays off, heatlth "reform" i.e. healthcare entitlement beneficiary, subsidized housing, Fannie Mae loan backed by the government when your credit history sucks, etc.) you'll always vote to keep that "breast milk" coming from someone else's "breast".
That's how the politicians get elected - they pander for votes by giving away the store and putting future generations further in debt. As long as your getting freebies and not the one paying 40% of your salary to the government you'll be sure to vote for the progressives. Yet those paying 40% according to the spin "aren't doing their fair share" and "need to pay a little more" while 47% pay nothing and the bottom income tax filers actually make money by sending in a return claiming credits.
In the end it matters not who's correct, for we all will eventually pay the tax of hyperinflation (can you say "Jimmy Carter" - nice man, bad president). And, taxation above a certain point will hurt productivity and prevent job creation (Nobel prize given here). I know because I'm in the 33% federal (not to mention city, county, state, etc. taxation which puts me more at 50%) bracket and as soon as my rate goes to 40% federal I'll be taking Monday and Fridays off and letting a good portion of my employees go. Why take risk and work if 50% or more of what I earn goes to the government. I work my *&# off while 47% pay nothing and yet I'm apparently "not doing my fair share". Fact: 50% taxation or more is socialism, and there happens to be a constitutional amendment against indentured servitude. Watch how hard I work and how many I employ when my effective rate goes up to 50%. So please, please raise my taxes, I'd love to take a nice long vacation and see how it feels to be in the bottom 47%.
Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money.
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin
"Here... will be preserved a model of government, securing to man his rights and the fruits of his labor" --Thomas Jefferson to William Plumer
"I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." --Thomas Jefferson to William Ludlow
marryokesFeb 16, 2012
READ AS: 1% should be paying OVER 50% ;)
markglFeb 16, 2012
Finally a real article with a real look at taxes.
drunkclamFeb 16, 2012
And they own 42% of all the wealth in America, if anything they are undertaxed.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/334156/top-five-wealthiest-one-percent/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ren1999Feb 16, 2012
We know that Romney paid 14% of his entire earnings in taxes while the rest of us paid 25% on average. Our small business bosses paid 35%. THAT IS NOT FAIR. This article is buried for being deliberately deceptive.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
slang4catFeb 16, 2012
How fair is it that I have to pay for people who want to do nothing but sit on their asses all day?
concusionFeb 16, 2012
yeah why is it fair that I have to pay taxes so you can sit your fat ass on Digg all day. Keep changing the world, one selfish douchey comment at a time.
slang4catFeb 16, 2012
You're just angry because you can't have what I've worked for.
concusionFeb 16, 2012
and what is that again?
slang4catFeb 16, 2012
Whatever it is you are not already receiving from the State and Federal Government I suppose.
Vote for Obama again. I heard this time he really is going to pay for your Gas and Mortgage!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
concusionFeb 16, 2012
well you said Im angry because I can't have what you've worked for. My anger is in response to your fake outrage, and its hard for me to envy you when I have no idea what you do. I could be talking to the guy who mops jizz up at the local porn store for all I know. Judging by your intellectual conversations around here that job is right up your alley.
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
Wow, from +1 to -4 in the time it took me to get down here. That is impressive, even for the Digg Komrades Bury Brigade...
atomheartmotherFeb 16, 2012
That is simply erroneous. The average household in the middle 20 percent of the income distribution scale (income between $34,000 and $65,000) will pay combined income and payroll taxes equal to 12.0 percent of total income this year, compared with 19.6 percent for those in the top 20 percent (income over about $104,000) and 20.2 percent for those in the top 1 percent (income over roughly $533,000).
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=2981
And before you attack the messenger like you did before, the Brookings Institute is widely regarded to be, if anything, left-leaning.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Graf_OrlockFeb 18, 2012
Buried because it's true. Again.
What a truly progressive cause you folks have, trying to hide facts that don't back your own failed logic.
kasha34Feb 15, 2012
But but but...it's STILL not their fair share.
vectorbFeb 15, 2012
Correct.
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
how much did you pay? how many hours did you work?
spatula7Feb 16, 2012
Pissing contest?
Slide down the scale and logically those above should pay a net amount more than those below, but most of us don't whine about it as much. As long as it's balanced nothing will happen to your socioeconomic position.
But you either believe in your country or you don't, if you don't, then you whine like kasha34 does all day long. In his mind a societies infrastructure should be magically free and no one should have to pay taxes and if we could just get rid of government everyone would play fair and help each other out when they're down on their luck.
vectorbFeb 16, 2012
Full time and I do not get the earned income tax credit.
How about you?
Closed AccountFeb 16, 2012
Full time is 40hr x 48weeks or 1920hr
Some people work 60hr x 50week 3000hr
and you want the 2nd group to pay more?
vectorbFeb 17, 2012
I want them to pay the same rate that I pay.
Closed AccountFeb 17, 2012
Yes, if they work more hours than you, and pay the same RATE, it means they will pay more tax. Often it means they end up paying a higher rate as well.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pc25Feb 17, 2012
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm
Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.
According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.
In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30 percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990 this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.
Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, taxpayers in this group have paid over 94 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000, 2001, and 2002, this group paid over 96 percent of the total.
vectorbFeb 17, 2012
And?
pc25Feb 17, 2012
it's posted as a reply to people who are saying the figures are wrong. WTF don't you get.
vectorbFeb 17, 2012
You have put up a bunch of numbers that are skewed to look drastic and designed to make it look like the very rich are oppressed by the big bad evil IRS and all those lazy poor people. What this does not show is what a real fair tax rate is and it sure as hell is not a 14% that Romney and his ilk pay while the rest of us fork over 35%. The very rich are using you. WTF dont you get?
teldarioFeb 16, 2012
Until their taxes are at the same rate as people making a fraction of their income then sarcasm about the top 1% paying their fair share just seems naive.
I also find it odd that anyone in the bottom 99% would defend the super rich being taxed less....Anyone making less than 100,000 a year want to tell me why they defend this?
kasha34Feb 16, 2012
Maybe their income comes from tax free municipal bonds. You want to change that law? It's gonna have some negative effects.
hibby76Feb 16, 2012
Because I've never worked for a poor person. I'm smart enough to understand that me and millions of others benefit from their wealth. Americans are better off because Steve Jobs created Apple Computers and became a billionaire. Are you suggesting that we'd all be better off had we capped his wealth at $10M and essentially remove all of his reason to continue to risk, create, and innovate?
We should have a flat tax where everyone contributes an equal portion. If you make little, you pay little. If you make a lot, you pay a lot. What isn't "FAIR" is a progressive tax especially when a majority can force a minority to pay more.
brucedogFeb 16, 2012
Steve Jobs is no saint. He sent apple products to be made in china where workers commit suicide just to make the product 20-30% cheaper.
benjie25Feb 16, 2012
Steve != Apple. Jobs got fired from Apple for a while. Apple sent work over seas, not Steve.
dividebyoFeb 17, 2012
And when he came back on board, he fixed that, right? He made a concerted effort to bring those jobs back into the U.S.?
Or did he see the profit margins and shrug?
Actually, if you can show me where he actively, seriously tried to bring all those jobs back into the U.S. I would be interested.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
And the yuppies in America keep buying them........
If you have a problem with it, don't buy apple products. As for the people in China, they're taking their best option for a job. So if it weren't for Apple, they'd be working at a less attractive job. Think about that for 10 seconds..........
How many Chinese are employed (or making more) than would have been if it weren't for Apple?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
breadfredFeb 17, 2012
You sound like you are in favor of slave labor.
hibby76Feb 19, 2012
Nope, I'm against price fixing even when it comes to labor.
benjie25Feb 16, 2012
Steve Jobs did what he did because he loved it, money was secondary.
The truly great don't do what they do for money. Getting money for what you love is f'n awesome. Yes, they need money to live, but getting paid to do what you love is just two birds with one stone.
Personally, I don't have an issue with rich people, some are very nice and give away lots of money. But enough rich people are out there changing laws in their favor and using their position of power to screw anyone over for even more money, even though they don't need more.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
david4041Feb 17, 2012
You think the venture capitalists that invested in Google and Facebook would have invested in those companies if they knew that they would be taxed at 90% if they were successful.
You think Facebook would be what it is today without some venture capitalist putting up the money?
If you tell a venture capitalist that if he loses his money he's on his own, but if he is successful, we've going to tax him at 90%, do you think you're going to get many investors?
Graf_OrlockFeb 18, 2012
Except that for the most part the VC's are money managers for institutional investors...
But substitute "business owner" for VC in your argument, and you're spot on.
mu5qularFeb 16, 2012
++++ more thumbs
etubruteFeb 16, 2012
I am glad you bought out Steve Jobs paid himself $1, but that also meant that all his money was rerouted through stocks and shares. That means he paid very little in taxes compared to the average American this has nothing to do with capping his wealth just him paying his fair share.
Do you really think Steve Jobs would have stopped innovating if he had to pay his fair share in taxes?
benjie25Feb 16, 2012
you still have to pay taxes on capital gains from your stock's gains.
etubruteFeb 16, 2012
yes at a much lower rate then anything else 15% or less.
Graf_OrlockFeb 18, 2012
@etubrute
Capital gains range from 35% to 15% depending on how long you held the asset. 15% is as low as you can go.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
What does "fair share" even mean???
If a rich person is paying 99% in taxes while others pay nothing is that "fair". Anytime 80% are voting that the 20% pay for s**t that they want but don't want to pay for, there won't be a "fair" system.
"Fair share"........that term has no meaning unless all parties are paying an equal portion or mutually agreeing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
spatula7Feb 16, 2012
How many things wrong with this comment? Who's saying cap their wealth potential? There is a history of higher tax rates where there was an economic boom, say the dot com bubble for one, that promoted many Steve Jobs types...no one was whining during the dot come bubble that taxes were holding them back. Further, I could give a crap about Steve Jobs, there are many examples of people who have contributed much more for much less personal wealth than Steve Jobs. This glorification of wealthy individuals over all others is ridiculous.
Here is what I'd say, we had GDP out growing debt during the Clinton years. We need to get back to GDP out growing debt and it will take some tax hikes, some spending cuts and some investment, where it makes sense and when it promotes growth. Not that hard as long as you are able to work those three legs of the stool. The new Republican ideology immediately takes two of those legs away, making it almost impossible to improve the economy. Worse they want to cut taxes and spending further in the middle of a brutal economic down turn.
pc25Feb 17, 2012
We need to get back to GDP out growing debt and it will take some tax hikes, some spending cuts and some investment,
internet bubble
aadyssFeb 16, 2012
You would have to have a massive tax reform movement as in 1986 and eliminate the tax "benefits" for all. You know, the things that the government gets involved in that is supposed to generate more business and/or create a better economy.
1. Home mortgage write-offs (helps sell more houses)
2. Child credit write-offs (helps all to afford children)
3. Disallow tax free munis sells (helps local governments)
4. Charitable giving write-offs (helps charities)
5. Write-offs for maintenance costs on rental (business) properties (helps provide rental properties for those who cannot buy in their present circumstances)
6. Write-offs for using your vehicle for business (Obvious)
7. 15% dividend tax (Obvious for those in the investment world. A riddle for those who are not)
8. Long term investment tax (Same as #7)
These are just a few write-offs I have used over the years. I am still using #4, #5, #6, #7 and #8. Eliminate those and tax revenues will increase. Well, in my case, I would move and/or sale those ventures so my tax rate would not increase but I must be smarter than those other people who are in business or in investments. Sure.....
mu5qularFeb 16, 2012
Because some of us realize them spending their money on the products we sell and get paid to make is how we make a living. The other option is they give that money to the government and we still drive on pot holes.
Because I work hard for every dollar I make. I would hate for anyone to tell me I have made too much and that I should give more of my money to the gov. It is real easy to complain about the 1% cuz you don't have a chance of getting there. Life unfair get over it. We should tax brad pit on he's good looks too while we're at it. It is unfair that the super attractive don't share it with the ugly people.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
usarugulaFeb 16, 2012
"It is real easy to complain about the 1% cuz you don't have a chance of getting there."
You just destroyed the American dream.
slang4catFeb 16, 2012
The American Dream is for people who are willing to recognize and invest the amount of hard work and ingenuity it takes to achieve it.
It's not for you. It's not for most Democrats. Obama's Nanny State is more your style.
usarugulaFeb 16, 2012
Working two jobs just to put food on your kids' table doesn't leave much time for ingenuity. It barely leaves time to go over their homework.
Once again the right shows precisely how tone deaf they are.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
slang4catFeb 16, 2012
It's a good thing Malcom McLean never heard you say that.
You liberals always have a reason not to succeed.
slang4catFeb 16, 2012
And it just goes to show what I said, you can't recognize the amount of work that is required. Lot's of excuses naturally, but short on everything else.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
We should definitely be taxing the hot people more and the ugly people less!
david4041Feb 17, 2012
<<I also find it odd that anyone in the bottom 99% would defend the super rich being taxed less....Anyone making less than 100,000 a year want to tell me why they defend this?>>
There are people who respect property rights. People who believe that if people work hard they should be able to keep the fruits of their labor. People who believe that if they take risks that they should be rewarded commensurate with the risk they've taken. People who believe that a parent who works hard to provide a good life for their kids should be able to pass on his wealth to his kids. People who believe that just because someone else has more money isn't a good reason to take money from him just because you think he has too much.
hibby76Feb 16, 2012
The word "fair" has exactly 0 meaning when you're talking about 80% of people voting to pillage the wealth of 20% of voters.
novenatorFeb 16, 2012
what a completely *unreasonable* article on reason.com.
I'm disappoint!
phoenixtxFeb 16, 2012
Couldn't fine the "e" and "d" key on your keyboard? Juiced up on the cheap liquor this eveing or smoking crack again novy?
phoenixtxFeb 16, 2012
Come on jackass, I left you a word to cry about? Speak up assh**e.
concusionFeb 16, 2012
I didnt know Biff Tannen posted on Digg. Can I get your autograph?
phoenixtxFeb 16, 2012
What are you talkiing about McFly?!
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
Really, you just showed yourself to be the true a-hole here. Only a simpleton attacks others based on grammar. Defaming someone? You sir are the true loser.
phoenixtxFeb 16, 2012
Wow! You really told me! And guess who doesn't care what you think?
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
You of course. You took the time to reply. Otherwise, you would have simply moved on.
phoenixtxFeb 17, 2012
Yea, that's it! The pinko commy figured me out!
roguegeniusFeb 18, 2012
Commie. The preferred spelling is commie, not commy.
Not to be pedantic or obsessed about grammar or anything. That would make me a real assh**e.
munr002Feb 16, 2012
I created an account just to tell you this: you're an idiot. novenator was quoting an internet meme.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/son-i-am-disappoint
I hope it made you feel real smart to call someone out on what you perceived as poor grammar, because you sure look stupid for not understanding that the lack of an "e" and a "d" was intentional.
phoenixtxFeb 16, 2012
So? I don't care. Thanks for playing.
roguegeniusFeb 18, 2012
Of course you care. Why to you keep coming back?
(this would be the time to call me a 'commy.' I can hardly wait.)
phoenixtxFeb 21, 2012
I keep getting these damn emails about some assh**e replying on digg and what the f**k. LOL
kasha34Feb 15, 2012
A surgeon who earns $300,000 should be taxed at 66%. He/she will still take home $100,000. Surely that's enough.
What's that? The surgeon will stop working 65 hours a week and just work 20 hours? But that's just selfish.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingnovaFeb 16, 2012
Yes, when tax rates were higher than they are now (you know, the last 50 YEARS), no one worked.
Idiot.
hibby76Feb 16, 2012
Yea......we're the most productive economy in the world because "no one works"? How do you make up this pure bullsh**???
delphium226Feb 16, 2012
Sarcasm. Get it?
mu5qularFeb 16, 2012
I know plenty of people that activly try to stay on welfare.
orangebobFeb 16, 2012
I bet you do.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
Who the heck are you hanging with? I know plenty of 'hard working' people that are still largely poor. They aren't all simply 'stay at home' lazy folks.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
I know people who sell their welfare for drugs while their kids are malnourished.........
linuxpersonFeb 16, 2012
Here you see why progressives are in reality regressive, they want to move society backwards in time.
No thanks kid, I'd say $250 billion a month is plenty for the Federal government. If you want it to have more money to piss away, you pay for it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hibby76Feb 16, 2012
What we should cap is productivity and innovation! That will stop them from making evil money!
kasha34Feb 16, 2012
Actually, that's what FDR did. For example, there were laws LIMITING how much an independent tailor could work.
"Night work was forbidden. Flying squadrons of these private coat-and-suit police went through the district at night, battering down doors with axes looking for men who were committing the crime of sewing together a pair of pants at night."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Administration#Critics
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
We should stop simply giving them 'tax breaks' praying it will trickle down to us. How about focusing breaks directly on productivity and innovation?
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
Ooh, how about just getting rid of ALL tax breaks entirely??
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
I favor that idea. If we want to support specific initiatives, do so through funding. I see a benefit in 'long term' planning and innovation supported through funding. But as for the tax code, let's not play all the games.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
......which just leads to more back room deals and crony capitalism.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
Why are we giving anyone "tax breaks"? Why not just have a simple system that's easy to calculate, difficult to manipulate, and easy to understand?
linuxpersonFeb 17, 2012
You have no idea wtf you are talking about.
Yea, let's disincentive things like donating to charity!!! Government is sooooo much more efficient than the devil charities, it's a known fact.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
Well, we punish people make money by taxing the hell out of them just like we tax smokers by taxing the hell out of cigarettes.
The poorest society in America, the Native Americans, is the group that has received more than any other group. This is causation not coincidence. The government tends to create and exacerbate problems.
They figured it would be a brilliant idea to round up all the poor and have them live together. They decided that it would be better to pay people to not work than it would to have them work, which pays less. They required hospitals to give away services for free and then they are astounded when health care costs rise.
"The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan" - Ronald Reagan
markglFeb 16, 2012
Why should even even be a surgeon if you're gonna take 2/3rds of their wealth. Talk about the demise and end of times. You'll never get someone to go to college for 8 years and years of medical training just to take 2/3rds of what they earn because according to you that is "enough" for him.
kasha34Feb 16, 2012
Exactly.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
Nor is anyone going to invest a million, hoping to make $100,000, only then to keep $10,000.............
roguegeniusFeb 16, 2012
Top 1 Percent pay 37 percent of income taxes... Yet have 90 percent of the INCOME.
Scratches head. I'm pretty good a Calculus... but that math ain't working for me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hibby76Feb 16, 2012
You do realize that on a global scale you're likely in the top 1%, right?
So about 80% of your wealth and income should be confiscated and sent overseas, right?
kasha34Feb 16, 2012
They don't see it that way. They don't understand that if we had a one-world govt they might get sent a couple of Bangladeshi families to live in their houses.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
delphium226Feb 16, 2012
One world govt? Really? You're going to put on that tin foil hat now? Crazy.
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
I'm sure many Europeans were saying the same thing before the rise of the EU...
roguegeniusFeb 16, 2012
It is Kasha. If he (or she, I still can't tell even with the better picture). If it suddenly started posting intelligently I'd call the cops, fearing for her life. Somebody would have obviously broken in and hurt her and was now posting under the new name.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
I love how you make a fictitious claim, you're called out on it, and then you have the nerve to come back and insult the intelligence of others.
Back on point........so you're saing we should increase the tax rate on the bottom 50% and cut the top tax rate in half, right???
roguegeniusFeb 17, 2012
Actually hibster, I responded to the comment in question.
Uh-huh. Once again, you can't win on the facts, so you start making s**t up.
delphium226Feb 16, 2012
On a global scale - you talk about 90% of the nonsense.
kasha34Feb 16, 2012
You're going to pretend that the average American isn't hundreds of times richer than the vast majority of people in African, India and China, Pakistan (all the stans) and the Middle East (minus Israel and Saudi Arabia)?
BluntzworthFeb 16, 2012
You are going to pretend that you really give a s**t about people in African, India and China, Pakistan (all the stans) and the Middle East (minus Israel and Saudi Arabia)?
Be honest.
concusionFeb 16, 2012
only when it suits the fairy tale he's living in
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
Just because you're generous with other people's money, it doesn't mean that you care or are generous.
BluntzworthFeb 17, 2012
@Hibby - How does me calling out Kasha in an instance where I clearly know that he doesn't give a crap about people in other parts of the world, especially Muslim people, have anything to do with me being generous with other people's money?
Nothing, I thought so.
delphium226Feb 16, 2012
You're going to pretend that a comparison with what people earn in other countries has anything remotely to do with the topic at hand?
You may as well discuss the flying speed of a tennis ball for all the sense it makes.
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
It's the exact same argument, scaled up.
roguegeniusFeb 16, 2012
Holy straw man, Batman. Dude, I live in America. And nobody 'sends' money anywhere even in this country. You pay taxes, and goods and services are provided that you get to avail yourself of.
hibby76Feb 16, 2012
Still not a genius
Information that you pull out of your ass still isn't factual.
Can you even read? Look at the chart in the article. Their AGI (adjusted gross income) is 16.9% of all earners (not 90% as you claim) and they pay 36.7% of the taxes. So, utilizing your "logic" the top one percent are actually overpaying by 220%
Similarly the bottom 50% of income earners make 13.5% of the money yet only pay 2.3% of the taxes, underpaying by 586%
So are you still a fan of being "Fair"??? And please don't tell me that 50% of America is poor...........
concusionFeb 16, 2012
what do you do for a living hibby because it is clear you don't quite understand how the world works. There's something called a minimum amount to live. Of course the numbers are going to look like that. God the amount of bulls**t you guys spew to save yourself a few bucks if you are even in that 1% is insane. You'd justify killing people for that tax money. And who is the one screaming about deficits and s**t? The poor people? or the rich people? Who consistently is crying about a raise in taxes that can afford it, rich people or poor people? Boohooo may have to forgo an extra sailboat this year, go cry me a f**king river you despicable piece of s**t.
UnaBomberrrFeb 16, 2012
f**k you. Somebody has to pay for it and some of us already pay plenty. Oh and one more thing f**k YOU for thinking you deserve a f**king penny more of my or anyone eles's hard earned money
BluntzworthFeb 16, 2012
But I guess it is alright for you to want people who really can't afford it to pay more of their hard(er) earned money?
Got it.
UnaBomberrrFeb 16, 2012
i dont want more of anyones money. I was a whole s**tload less spending from our federal government. We dont have a tax problem in this country, we have a spending problem.
slang4catFeb 16, 2012
Sorry Unabobmerr, that money is needed because we have a mass of people in this country who are unwilling to provide for themselves and want the Government to take care of them. They don't want to work, they just want to get by on what can be provided to them by you and I in the form of entitlements.
Anyone who doesn't believe or already know that, has never been around the block.
BluntzworthFeb 16, 2012
@slang - What about people who physically can't work? Now be careful what you say.
concusionFeb 16, 2012
Thats the string pull puppet phrase of the day "We dont have a tax problem we have a spending problem" its all the same s**t. We do have a tax problem in this country, the rich are so deluded they think their the victim. Talk about self entitlement and delusion.
The country needs extra revenue and these people wouldn't even notice the money gone, but your here saying f**k no, f**k no. Way to be an American.
If this was 1776 you would be sitting in your mansion counting your money hoping King George puts down those smelly farmers.
roguegeniusFeb 16, 2012
Slut4cat, that is an amazingly stupid statement. Again I am continuously jawdropped by the arrogance and sense of entitlement of you people.
People don't WANT a job, that is your position on what is wrong with this country? People LIKE hunger and insecurty and pushing a shopping cart around the streets. It's not the massive failures, incompetence, and out right criminal theft of the so called 'job makes.' No, there is plenty of work to be had... they just don't WANT it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 16, 2012
Una, if you live in the South, you get my money every single day. The fact is, if not for my region, most of the others couldn't keep their heads above water. I live it when a tick says "I don't want blood."Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ridgerunner5Feb 16, 2012
I don't think there are as many leeches as some people say there are. They DO exist, but they do not constitute nearly the percentage of those on government welfare as others imply. But yes, the government has been acting like a teenager with a credit card for farr too long now. If we have to tighten our individual belts, they should have to tighten their collective one.
atomheartmotherFeb 16, 2012
"Una, if you live in the South, you get my money every single day."
No, not everyone in the South gets "your" money. Mostly it's the dregs and leeches of society--you know, the ones who vote Democrat.
You should be happy...your funds are staying in the family.
roguegeniusFeb 17, 2012
Right. The Jerry Springer set. I think we are talking about the same people.
roguegeniusFeb 16, 2012
Don't give me that s**t you ignorant burger flipper. You don't pay s**t and you know it.
Secondly, you stupid f**k, you don't own any money. Nobody does. Read the f**king bills. Damage a bunch of money and you can be held accountable for 'destruction of government property.' You toothless hicks are too f**king stupid to even understand what little you have. You are working for VALUE, not money. When you come home from your mindless, unskilled job, you get minimum wage. Seven dollars or whatever. There is no promise you actually get seven dollars. The market may fluctuate and you may get more, or less (probably less, thanks to Reagan) depending on weather the dollar goes up or down against the world market...
What the f**k am I doing. I'm trying to educate a dog. Shut the f**k up, una, you'll be TOLD what to think the next time your masters yank your chain.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
UnaBomberrrFeb 16, 2012
Come try and take it from me and ill show you who owns it.
And you couldnt be more wrong about the rest of this non-sense rant either, but keep up the delusional rants please, they are rather comical
roguegeniusFeb 16, 2012
Translation: I called you on it and you can't respond because I'm right. So you went all internet tough guy one me.
Ohhh. So scary.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
I understand the world very much. I was raised by a poor widow. I have lived and traveled on many countries and continents. I've been rich and poor in the last 10 years. I've been an employee, a manual laborer, and a business owner. I hold advanced degrees.
So let me tell you how the world works. People are not the dumbasses that you make them out to be. If people are smart enough to work every government program that there is to get money, then they're smart enough to get a job and work for money. I actually have confidence and faith in people. People are resourceful and they will make a better life for themselves if you don't cripple them with the heroin of free money.
If you make more than about $49k per year, you too are part of this evil "1%" that you demonize.
Taxation is NOT about equalization, it's about paying for the necessities of government. Let me ask you this question: If raising the tax rate of the rich results in equal or lower revenue for the United States, are you in favor or against raising those taxes?
Please answer that one question "yes" or "no" with out any bs excuses.
This "minimum amount to live on" is not a fixed amount. People can live together, share resources, eliminate a cell phone, eat rice, beans, potatoes, and powdered milk as I did growing up. Prosperity and production don't come from government hand outs.
Yes, I know the way that the world works. I'm guessing that you don't.
concusionFeb 17, 2012
hahahaha sorry buddy $49,000 is part of the evil 1%? hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaa
hibby76Feb 19, 2012
Yep. Only 1% of the people on the planet earth make more than $49,000 per year.
Why is that funny? You sound like a rich white guy laughing at the poor of the world. Typical of someone who's part of "the 1%".
roguegeniusFeb 16, 2012
Uh, hibby, as usual you talk a lot, but rather miss the most basic point.
You are talking about fair, not me. If you want fair, it's fairly simple - tax every dollar of income. Ah, be we don't do that, do we. No, to be 'fair' we only tax by person. And if you can game the system, Mr. Mittens Romney (one smart person) paid lower taxes than you (one dumb person). But that's fair, right?
As for wealth 50% are 'poor' it depends on what poor is. If 50% can't meet needs, then yeah. See, most of us base things on reality, not the math given to us by our masters. To me, if you income dosen't meet needs, you are poor. If 100% of the people can't meet need, then we are all poor. I'm certain you are lower on the income ladder than me, so it's probably better if I bow do your expertiese: do you feel poor?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
What are "needs"? Cable TV? Cell Phones? Multiple cars? Color TV's? Gaming systems? Computers? Internet? I've known poor people who received government assistance who had all of those things.
I don't blame Mitt for paying 15% taxes........I blame the moronic politicians who created a 70,000 page tax code.
Anyone in America who makes more than $50k per year is part of the evil "1%". So we should confiscate 80% of that wealth and distribute it to the rest of the world, right?
roguegeniusFeb 17, 2012
Again, you mock, but you are so sheltered and pampered by the infrastructure of this nation (you are welcome, BTW) that you really don't know what you need.
Do you need cable TV? Probably not. Cell phone? In 2011, yeah, you probably do. How are potential employers going to get a hold of you? Color TV's? Probably need that too. Don't need the color, I guess, but where are you going to find a HD TV that is NOT color. Maybe Sony should be forced to invest millions in R+D to take the color out of HD... Oh, wait, that would be big gov't right? Gaming systems, maybe. I don't game, but I know they are internet connected and have disks and such in it. I know people who don't have a computer or Disk player - but have a game system so they have all that stuff. Might be cheaper to give the poor PlayStations rather than computers. But keep thinking inside that box. That's the kind of thinking that's kept us... way behind the rest of the world since Reagan.
I don't blame Mitt either. I blame your party. They have been coddling the rich for 30 years.
No, anyone who makes 50k is not in the 1%, that would me I and possibly you are in deep into 1% territory. That's bulls**t.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
Nope...you don't "need" a cell phone. I know plenty of people who are on a budget and don't have one.
You "NEED" a TV???? ......you should really think before you type.
You clearly don't know what "my party" is. Again, you should do more thinking and a lot less ASSuming.
On a global scale, anyone who makes $50k per year is in the top 1% of global income earners.
YOU ARE THE 1%.
roguegeniusFeb 17, 2012
Ah, the traditional voice of the right. You don't tell us what you need, we'll tell YOU what you need. You know, in name of 'freedom" *snapping to attention*
You got to communicate if you want to advance, let along advance. When you live under a bridge, you need a cell phone. This isn't the Serengeti, it's America. You need the proper tools to live in your environment.
TV? You said color TV, implying that was 'too good' for the poor (typical right winger: firm believer that we are all free to live as YOU want.) Apparently, you feel we should engineer the color out of HD tv's (which, as you may or may not know, are the only kind made now) for the sole purpose of making things suck for the poor. So in addiction to a liar, you are an assh**E too.
Sure I know what party you are in. You are a republican. You may think you are a libertarian, or one of the other bulls**t psuedo-parties, but you are owned by the Republicans. Remember the reform party? It hurt the Republicans in 90, then in 94 was the Pat B. party. LOL. It's called 'co-opting. You may not know what you are, but trust me, your masters do.
I'll though you this bone, though. Though I feel little love for the democratic party, I know they own me. Went it comes down to the wire, and the choice it between Mittens and Obama, I'm voting Obama. They are counting on my intelligence forcing me into that, much the way Rove is counting on your stupidity to make you vote mittens.
On a GLOBAL scale... Well, well. I did not get the memo that we were now electing the representatives for the whole world. In America, I am not the one percent. And god knows you aren't. We are just owned by the 1%. The only difference between us is you are house and I am field.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hibby76Feb 17, 2012
So the millionaires in the Hamptons aren't part of the "1%" because they only are comparing themselves to the other people who are multi millionaires and billionaires. In fact, they're practically poor!
FYI, you're still not a genius. Perhaps one day but you're no where close.
It's really kind of cute how you pretend to know so much and clearly know so little. It reminds me of a small, arrogant child that people are fascinated with.
So, you ARE part of the 1%. How much should the 1% be taxed? How much of their wealth should be confiscated and distributed? Better yet......set an example and give it up voluntarily to our wise and responsible government. They clearly know how to use your money better than you do to help others.
Tell me all about your plans to share your vast wealth with the 99%.
Gratefully, the poor have much better lives today than they did 50, 100, and 150 years ago thanks to the success of capitalism.
roguegeniusFeb 17, 2012
Oh look. Hibby thinks he a people. Isn't that adorable.
"So the millionaires in the Hamptons aren't part of the "1%" because they only are comparing"
No, but that is a nice try skippy. Those guys in the Hamptons whose pools you skim are Americans. So in the big people world, we count them... say it with me now... as Americans! Did you say it? Yay!! *claps hands like I do when my puppy craps in the yard instead of the carpet.*
"FYI, you're still not a genius. Perhaps one day but you're no where close."
FYI, not only are you the ten thousands person to say that... You are even competing with yourself. Repetition, even less funny than the first time you said it. And, I'm sorry... not funny even then. That fact that you keep repeating a line that keeps bombing... Kind of embarrassing.
"It's really kind of cute how you pretend to know so much and clearly know so little. It reminds me of a small, arrogant child that people are fascinated with."
It's really cute how you keep plugging, trying to land a blow when really you are soooo out of your league. But I'm glad you just keep swinging. You can't get any better if you don't practice. Good boy.
So, you ARE part of the 1%. How much should the 1% be taxed? How much of their wealth should be confiscated and distributed? Better yet......set an example and give it up voluntarily to our wise and responsible government. They clearly know how to use your money better than you do to help others.
Ok, in this post I've already taught you how deliver REAL burn, how you identify an American, how NOT to be repetitive and boring, and even gave you a pep talk to help you keep your chin up while I keep beating you down. NOW, I have to teach you math too? Shouldn't I be being paid for all this?
Gratefully, the poor have much better lives today than they did 50, 100, and 150 years ago thanks to FDR.
I'm sure that's what you meant. So I fix it for you. No charge this time. You are welcome.
unclefireFeb 16, 2012
Did you read the chart? They don't make 90% of the income. They earn 17% of the income. I wish people would quit making s**t up.
roguegeniusFeb 16, 2012
Wow. I point out the the math doesn't work and what did you people read? One world government.
Yes. I"M the one who can see what is right in front of me.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 16, 2012
Good thing I didn't use the word 'mutant,' you all be running, screaming "GIANT ANTS."
FrankLuskaFeb 18, 2012
The top pay 37%, over 40% don't pay at all, that leaves 59% that pay 63% of all taxes.
The 1% are the only ones who have seen any pay increases over the past 30 years that are above inflation on a consistence basis. The majority have lost income due to inflation and the greedy rich.
Only in America, but of course, somebody from the right will say, make the poor pay their fair share so the 1% can pay less.. Geeez.
But who is too blame for all this? You guessed it, Democrats and Republicans. Who else can you blame, they are the only ones in power, or should i say, controlled by the Greedy.
Everyone look at what Obama has done so far, wonder where the jobs are, why there right here.
http://digg.com/news/politics/fact_check_has_the_obama_administration_really_issued_fewer_regulations_job_creators_alliance
markusfarkusFeb 16, 2012
What I take from this is that people at the top control the vast majority of the wealth. You want people to stop bitching about the rich not paying enough taxes, then help build up the middle class and increase the tax base. The more wealth keeps trickling up, the worse it will be for the country.
davidnivenFeb 16, 2012
The reason that so many people don't want to raise taxes on the rich is not because they themselves are rich but because they have a moral problem with government taxing anyone with the attitude that it's the government's money. It's not. It's each person's money.
I am glad that we live in a country where anyone can become a millionaire. But, it seems that the leftists are demanding that you get the government's permission before making X amount of money. Screw that thinking.
It's not the percentage, it's the principle at work here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionFeb 16, 2012
so many? majority want to raise taxes on the rich. Everything is immoral now. If i don't get a corvette for my birthday its immoral
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
You set up the 'lefties' argument then attack that argument. Make sure the 'set up' is correct. No, lefties don't want permission to be obtained first.
But, I too am glad to live in a country where anyone can become a millionaire. But, the problem is that you ignore some systematic reasons that actually make it much harder for a significant portion to make that million. Sure, I agree this shouldn't be fought out over taxation. But then, the 'right' seems to ignore some systematic issues that exacerbate our problems.
atomheartmotherFeb 16, 2012
"But, the problem is that you ignore some systematic reasons that actually make it much harder for a significant portion to make that million."
Can you name any other country in the world--present or past--which has provided as much upward mobility as the USA has?
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
There are many recent studies however showing that it is 'harder' for people to move upwards compared to many other countries. Either way, we still have systematic issues standing in the way of people in the lower classes. I don't believe ours is a great country regarding opportunities. But, we can do better and should be ever-vigilant..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherFeb 16, 2012
So you can't.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
Fine. How about Romania.
http://www.verisi.com/resources/prosperity-upward-mobility.htm
No, currently, the U.S. does not provide more upward mobility in the present.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherFeb 16, 2012
Your own link illustrates that upward mobility in the US is far, far greater than in the socialistic European countries Progressives would have us emulate.
roguegeniusFeb 16, 2012
China has moved far more people out of poverty than the US.
atomheartmotherFeb 16, 2012
China has about 150 million people living below the United Nations poverty line of one US dollar a day, and and nearly 500 million Chinese people live on less than $2 a day.
Poverty in the US and poverty in China are two vastly different things. Furthermore it's quite a bit easier to "move people out of poverty" when you've got hundreds of millions of people living in abject poverty.
It's not much different than the idiotic, "Bush didn't create many jobs" argument. When you're at or near full employment, it's not really possible to.
JustSayNoPartyFeb 16, 2012
@atom. We're reading the link differently. It shows our upward mobility is less than many.
atomheartmotherFeb 16, 2012
"It turns out that compared to the equivalent set of parent-offspring pairs in Scandinavian countries, sons whose Fathers are in the bottom 20% are much less upwardly mobile in the US....On the other hand, intergenerational upward mobility for daughters whose Fathers were in the BOTTOM 20%, is only marginally worse in the US. "
roguegeniusFeb 16, 2012
There was a time when we were number one at upward mobility, during and after FDR, but those days a long gone. China, for one example, is doing much better than us right now and that can't be denied.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 16, 2012
China.
atomheartmotherFeb 16, 2012
"The great majority of people in rural areas are not able to finish high school (Wu and Trieman 2007). They often become migrant workers after junior high or attend vocational schools with questionable learning environments (Fan 2008:97).
Wu and Trieman (2007) state that contrary to past research indicating high upward mobility in Chinese society, there is actually a strong downward mobility in the rural sector. The limited upward mobility in rural areas is only available to those who scored high in college entrance exams and have the means to attend universities to switch their hukou to urban status."
http://www.chinacurrents.com/Vol9_No2_2010/cc_mao.htm
roguegeniusFeb 16, 2012
You are playing number games again. You didn't say percentage, you said highest. China has succeeded in pulling a number of people out of poverty that exceeds the entire population of the US. We'll never match that accomplishment simply because we don't have that many people. Where all these people are located (rural vs. city; coastal vs inland) are their problems. But the total numbers speak for themselves.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherFeb 16, 2012
As I indicated, it's hardly apples vs apples but if you want to somehow pat yourself on the back for being technically correct I guess you can do that.
roguegeniusFeb 17, 2012
It's not apples to apples? It's not even apples to dark matter.
You've been spanked. Again.
linuxpersonFeb 18, 2012
You moving there? Enjoy not having access to digg.
roguegeniusFeb 18, 2012
No. Just answering his question. China it beating the living s**t out of us right now.
You can digg down, but can you say I'm wrong?
fauozFeb 16, 2012
And what do the top 10% pay of taxes in US? Like 98%
OswaldsBodyGuardFeb 16, 2012
Why should anybody listen to repubs talk about economic matters after Bush sent the country into a depression ?
Getting advice about how to run the economy from cons is like getting advice on how to run a ship from the captain of the Titanic.
veganpaFeb 17, 2012
Top 1 percent f the rest of us more than 37%
KapsiotFeb 16, 2012
The bottom line is that obama's deficit is so out of control you can take ALL the money of every billionaire in America and it won't even make a dent in the deficit.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
roguegeniusFeb 16, 2012
You see that line on the top of your screen? That's the topic under discussion. Try to keep with it.
pinktacodiggerFeb 17, 2012
They reason why rhetoric against the poor, welfare stricken, lazy people work, is because when the Right hears it, they imagine some illegal minority with several kids. What they fail realize is that there are more white people on welfare, and how many of those people that live in the middle of no-where Arkansas do you think identify themselves with Obama or Democrats?