Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
"Half of America's Revenues Go to Richest 0.25 Percent"
motherjones.com — "[Earners of over $1 million/year,] who constitute less than a quarter of 1 percent of all taxpayers, reaped almost 47 percent of the total income gains in 2005."
blackolive- 1452 diggs
- digg it
- openthink, on 10/10/2007, -44/+104what's comical (actually really sad) is how the republicans defend the tax cuts by saying but all the less rich also benefit. they twist the facts to suggest the non-rich are benefiting...without clarifying that the hugest benefit goes disproportionately to the richest. what's especially sad is that so many of those least-advantaged don't question or object.
- Rahodeb, on 10/10/2007, -29/+63I don't begrudge the rich their money, as long as it is honestly earned. I hope to be one of them someday, and I don't need some communist ideal of what's fair used to take what I have worked hard for.
- Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -19/+61And this is why tax laws favor the rich. Everyone expects that they'll be rich someday. Your odds of becoming rich are virtually nil, unless you are born into money, marry into money or are insanely lucky.
- Rahodeb, on 10/10/2007, -18/+19No, not everyone thinks they will be rich, nor do the majority favor tax laws that favor the rich. I support a flat tax. No more loopholes, shelters, or reams of tax paperwork.
Also, there are other ways of becoming rich. Innovation, education, entrepreneuring spirit. Your narrow view of the world, and your pessimism about your odds of success are the reason you think we need redistribution of wealth.
It's funny how many people on this site claim to be libertarian in spirit until it comes to economics- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19"No, not everyone thinks they will be rich, nor do the majority favor tax laws that favor the rich. I support a flat tax. No more loopholes, shelters, or reams of tax paperwork."
When you factor in sales taxes, social security, etc. in addition to Income tax, people are already being taxed at a flat rate. Making income taxes flat would actually make overall taxes regressive, where the poorer you are the larger part of your income goes to tax. - bacon_skoda, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Rahodeb, I am not a libertarian or a librarian, and no freakin flat tax.
- JacksonBlack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"When you factor in sales taxes, social security, etc. in addition to Income tax, people are already being taxed at a flat rate. Making income taxes flat would actually make overall taxes regressive, where the poorer you are the larger part of your income goes to tax."
Which is why we should get rid of the lot of them in favor of a VAT that excludes necessities like food and housing. It would actually *be* progressive instead of pretending to be. We certainly need to throw away the social security tax and find a different way to fund those programs.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19"No, not everyone thinks they will be rich, nor do the majority favor tax laws that favor the rich. I support a flat tax. No more loopholes, shelters, or reams of tax paperwork."
- dshPls, on 10/10/2007, -23/+25You don't need luck. You need to be smart, effective, and creative. Not everyone is equally smart, so why should everyone reap the same benefits? It's economic natural selection.
- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+23If we really lived in a meritocracy, Paris Hilton would be on the bottom.
- Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23"Not everyone is equally smart, so why should everyone reap the same benefits?" There's more kinds of intelligence than the kind needed to become rich. Being rich is not proof that someone is "smart". "It's economic natural selection." And I thought Social Darwinism had died out. There's more to becoming rich than being smart, effective, and creative. If that's all that was needed, many artists, scientists, and social workers would be rich, instead of laboring in obscurity. Charisma and ruthlessness are also required.
- bacon_skoda, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4dishPIease, I've decided that you are not smart enough to enjoy the benefits of fire protection.
- 4815162342, on 10/10/2007, -20/+17Rahodeb, you are the reason Republicans get elected. Pipe dreams of becoming rich. Fkn moron.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Exactly. Unless you are making a million a year, low taxes for the rich don't help you. Adjusting yearly for inflation, over 99% of the people reading this will NEVER make that much.
- GibZilla, on 10/10/2007, -7/+21Flat taxes favor the rich. Lets say you tax everyone at 35%, if you are poor and make $20,000 a year you pay $7000 in taxes and take home $13,000. If you make $40,000,000 you pay $14,000,000 in taxes and take home $26,000,000. Which of the two is easier to live on?
- Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5If a flat tax were implemented the rate could be much lower than 35%.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -11/+9I disagree ... in your example no one is favored, it is equal. The rich person is rich, so no matter the tax they will have an easier economic life. But even so, I don't particularly care which is easier (and I'm not in the top percentile) because that's life (life is hard).
The person who made $40M most likely used their mind and hard work to make that money and deserves to reap the benefits. - Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21"The person who made $40M most likely used their mind and hard work to make that money and deserves to reap the benefits."
WTF? Bullcrap! I can easily show that "hard work" is vastly less important than being born to the right parents.
Two people are born. They each *inherit* money. The first guy inherits $100, the second guy inherits $100,000. They each invest it with equal hard word and intelligence.
After 20 years, the first guy has made +$80. The richer guy made +$80,000.
Making exactly the same business choices, with equal levels of intelligence and hard work, one of them made a thousand times as much. Now repeat the cycle with descendants of each family, where each family is equally hard working and intelligent and they make the same choices.
OMG! One is filthy rich, the other is still pretty poor (with inflation, maybe poorer) and THEY HAVE THE SAME MERIT.
Voila. - PA42, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1That's a ridiculous comparison for a whole bunch of reasons. First off I said the person who "made $40M," not the person who inherited $40M. Furthermore, a small minority of the rich are rich because of their parents. Additionally, there is more to life and earning money then investments. If the man in your example who inherited $100 goes to law school and earns $100,000 a year he will be richer than the other guy if the other guy becomes a janitor. Finally, why is it unfair for someone to inherit money? I'm working 80 hours a week so my kids can have an easier life, why isn't that a legitimate goal?
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You said "made 40M", and in my example the rich guy "made 80k". What's the difference? We're both talking about income in addition to existing wealth.
"If the man in your example who inherited $100 goes to law school"
The whole POINT was that they both made equally astute (in terms of rate of return) choices with their money. Doesn't matter if they invested it in their own education, or stocks, or a savings account, or starting up a company, whatever--the assumption is they are just as good at making do with what they have!
And despite equally good choices, one familiy is destined for massive wealth and the other is not. You said the guy who made more probably did it on merit, and I've shown a simple example where inheritance vastly outclasses the importance of merit. - PA42, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0The difference is that rate of return on education and work is not based on how much money you start out with. Although starting out wealthy is an advantage, it does not define you. Your entire basis is that "both made equally astute (in terms of rate of return) choices with their money." This is not how life is ... if the $10k guy wants to be rich he should work harder. The point is that we all have to make the most out of what we are given and we all have opportunity to do so. Hard work and smarts define us, not inheritance. The guy born dirt poor can become a millionaire and the millionaire can become poor, so the the rate of return is dependent on what you start with in life.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7"Hard work and smarts define us, not inheritance."
Sure, on a touchy feely level. But that's not what we're talking about. You said "The person who made $40M most likely used their mind and hard work".
And I'm telling you that I disagree. If we assume some rich people, and some poor people, and that intelligence and work ethic are not *caused by* wealth level, the rich guy is most likely rich BECAUSE OF INHERITANCE. - JacksonBlack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"And I'm telling you that I disagree. If we assume some rich people, and some poor people, and that intelligence and work ethic are not *caused by* wealth level, the rich guy is most likely rich BECAUSE OF INHERITANCE."
That really isn't necessarily the case. Let's go ahead and take your example above a little further: Suppose there are four guys, two of them start off with $100 each and the other two start off with $100,000 each. One of the poor guys and one of the rich guys then become janitors making $40K/year, and the other poor guy and rich guy become doctors making $100K/year. They all invest their initial money and collect 5% interest a year. At 50 years old, assuming each of the four spent $35K/year and stuck the rest in their mattresses, let's see where we are:
Janitor 1: $1147 from initial investments, saved $5000/year from age 18-50: $160,000
Janitor 2: $1,147,000 from initial investments, saved $5000/year from ages 18-50: $160,000, total: $1,307,000
Doctor 1: $1147 from initial investments, saved $65,000/year from ages 26-50: $1,560,000, total: $1,561,147
Doctor 2: $1,147,000 from initial investments, saved $1,560,000, total: $2,707,000
Now, clearly the two guys who started well off stayed that way, but look: The guy who started with basically nothing and became a doctor still ends up with $200K more than the guy who started well off but became a janitor -- more than enough to pay back student loans. And that's assuming the $60K more a year he saves gets stuck in a mattress because I didn't feel like doing the math on investing it, which would have made the difference even bigger.
It's possible for poor people to become wealthy. It's hard. Not all of them can do it. But it's possible. - lostangelonline, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3you guys make sick...just make an average of the income of rich born and an average of the income of the poor born, and you'll see that rich born people have, in average, a much higher income that the poor born people. if you born rich, you have much more chances to have a high income, you have your rich dad and rich family and rich friends to advise and help in the process. point
- JacksonBlack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Of course rich people are better off than poor people. That's practically the definition. The point I'm making is that someone who starts off with effectively nothing can still leave a million dollars to his kids -- without being any kind of super genius. All it takes is going to college and becoming a doctor or a lawyer and then investing half your salary every year. It's not rocket science.
- YourMothersMilk, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Nail on the head Nougat. It's such a shame that people don't see it. It's that lottery/Vegas mentality. Like our friend Rahodeb up here. I feel sorry for the dude. He reminds me of the "Trailer Park 'mericans", tellin' how they support Bush and the $300 he gave'm on tax day. People like you Rahodeb get bought cheap with your American Idol mentality. The American Dream has changed, and unless you turn someone else's dream into a nightmare, you aren't going to be the .25% in today's USA. Either-way, best of luck to you there Rahodeb. Best of luck.
- g30ff, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Economic natural selection? Man, I've heard some dumb things here on digg, but that takes the cake.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3Nil "odds" of being rich? ***** that you sociialist retard. You can be rich if you want to. You have to put the time and risk in to figure out how.
A majority of rich people are not rich because of luck. You just think that because of the negative spin against being wealthy in the media. I have some friends that are starting to head towards being rich, and you know what, they work a ***** load harder than most of us including college and don't spend money on cars and TV's so far. They wait until they have wealth for that.
Economic natural selection is a dumb comment? It's a perfect analogy. You must be stupid too. You get out what you put in. I don't want to be part of any other system.- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11It's a bad analogy because you're confusing inherited wealth with business acumen. A stupid rich guy can easily make more money than a poor smart guy.
- mykus, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Tax laws don't "favor the rich" for the sake of favoring the rich. They favor entrepreneurship and investment. If there were no people willing to take risks with their money to start or grow businesses, those who don't would not have a job. Their only option then would be to go out and work for themselves which is one of the things that makes our country great. And no, I am not one of the wealthy. I have my day job which doesn't pay as much as I would like but I am working on starting my own business outside of that in my spare time instead of sitting on my butt in front of the tv.
- g30ff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8"Economic natural selection is a dumb comment? It's a perfect analogy. You must be stupid too."
Then let's hear you explain it, genius. I'll readily admit that I'm no economist, but I do know something about natural selection (being a PhD candidate in a decidedly evolutionary field and all). - lostangelonline, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i've made some simple calculations, asumming that rich people are 0.25%of all people and the percentage between rich clashh and the middle class is the same percentage as between middle and lower class, and it turned out that out of 400 people, 1 is rich, 19 are middle class, and 380 are lower class...the percentage between classes being 1 to 19-20
- Rahodeb, on 10/10/2007, -18/+19No, not everyone thinks they will be rich, nor do the majority favor tax laws that favor the rich. I support a flat tax. No more loopholes, shelters, or reams of tax paperwork.
- laserdog, on 10/10/2007, -6/+28I'd like to suggest the idea that it's possible to guarantee everyone necessary food and medicine without becoming a communist state.
- Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Even then it's no guarantee. Freedom can facilitate (not guarantee) equality of opportunity. It certainly cannot guarantee equality of outcomes.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Consider starving people in [third world country of choice] here. It's not that we don't have enough food, but that in many cases the economic model actually punishes charity and it's a matter of it being more profitable to destroy food than to donate it.
- Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Even then it's no guarantee. Freedom can facilitate (not guarantee) equality of opportunity. It certainly cannot guarantee equality of outcomes.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8You are naive if you think a large part of being successful is what you call "luck." Bill Gates didn't get to where he is by chance and neither did Steve Jobs. Both of these men kinda show your view of what it takes to be completely wrong. Now if you are talking about winning your money and not earning it then yeah you are right.
- j37hr0, on 10/10/2007, -16/+11Gates didn't earn, he stole other peoples work and passed it off as his own, and was in the right place at the right time. It also helps that he was born into wealth.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3My South-park-esque response to many Apple/Microsoft fanboys: "PARC did it!"
- g30ff, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4So you don't need luck if you're an underhanded *****? I've heard better arguments.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Last I checked that isn't luck.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Getting away with it is.
- g30ff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No, it sure isn't luck. I don't think any of us really want to live in a society that rewards deviousness and a willingness to screw over our fellow man, so I don't think it is much of a winning argument.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3IBM first visited Gary Kildall at Digital Research to license their OS called CP/M for the IBM PC. The two companies were unable to reach an agreement. IBM then contacted Microsoft, due to Gate's family connections, and signed a contract to find a usable OS. Gates then produced an OS called 86-DOS, which was a ripoff of CP/M.
Gates lucked out at least three times starting out - once when Kildall refused to deal with IBM, twice when an IBM manager remembered a conversation he had with Bill Gate's mother, and three times when Gates successfully ripped off Kildall.- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2I'm guessing you're not successful, because if you were you would know that having networking skills is not luck and marketing a product is not luck. Furthermore, unless you were in the room when IBM decided not to license Kildall's OS you wouldn't know why they did it. If Gates really stole the OS, as you say, then Kildall should have done a better job protecting it.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It wasn't Bill's networking skills that helped, but his mother's. Last time I checked, we don't pick our parents. As for why IBM didn't pick CP/M, that is documented. Look it up. I won't comment on your defense of theft, other than say that you must be one crooked bastard in order to make that statement. I suggest re-examining your morals.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2 You (and alot of digg) feel personally offended by MS and Gates. I'm a mac user, but I don't hate Gates, he's a shrewd business man and has been good for the USA. It isn't illegitimate to be helped by your parents. Humans and all other primates stick by their young and the children should be able to reap the benefits as Gates did. Not to mention that Gates making his mom proud, thereby causing her to gush about him and MS is his networking skills as well as his mothers. Here's another example: I market something to you, you don't bite. You run into guy X and tell him about my product and he comes to me ... that is my networking skills, just as this is Gates' networking skills.
And I'm not a crooked bastard, but if you are going to say that Gates infringed on some IP, then where is the IP ... if you don't get a patent it is in the public domain and if Gates got the patent then the USPTO obviously didn't think Gates stole it.
I suggest you re-examine your bias and not take away Gates being clever. - XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Gates is lucky. He got lucky that IBM's previous deal fell through. He got lucky with his parents and their networking skills. He got lucky that IBM came to him. And he got lucky in ripping off Kildall. THAT was my entire point. Luck enters into the success of Bill Gates.
Yes, Gates ripped off Kildall's IP. However, that was back before the current laws clearly making that illegal. Even so, that is still extremely crooked and morally questionable. Kildall threatened IBM with legal action. And surprisingly, IBM backed down. They sold CP/M right next to DOS initially, but Microsoft undercut Digital's price - something which is easy to do when you steal the product in the first place. - PA42, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0First off, their have been patent rights in the US since we were colonies and the patents have issued since Jefferson approved them all in the 18th century. IBM has patents and copyrights on computer code dating back to the 60's, so the laws were clear.
Secondly, none of that is luck ... Let's take an anonymous successful doctor. By your logic, he would be lucky that he got into medical school and lucky that he got a job. All of your "luck" is not luck at all it's a combination of hard work, being a shrewd business man and following his dream. So get off of it already, your argument is ridiculous. Maybe you would be more succesful if you stopped believing in luck and started realizing that you make things for yourself in this world - XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Patent rights weren't recognized for software back then. Copyright was recognized, but it is ridiculously easy to get around copyright on software.
And yes, Gates was lucky, for all the reasons I already mentioned. He got lucky that IBM's previous deal fell through. He got lucky with his parents and their networking skills. He got lucky that IBM came to him. And he got lucky in successfully ripping off Kildall.
- DruSam, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1This magical luck some of you people insist upon has little to do with it, it's more like: the harder (and smarter) you try, the "luckier" you get. It's about increasing your chances and odds, either by working harder or having someone work harder for you.
- j37hr0, on 10/10/2007, -16/+11Gates didn't earn, he stole other peoples work and passed it off as his own, and was in the right place at the right time. It also helps that he was born into wealth.
- PJ1967, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Here's what Adam Smith, the intellectual patron saint of conservative economics, had to say about taxes...
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-- Wealth of Nations (Book Five, Chapter II, Article I)
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."
-- Wealth of Nations (Book Five, Chapter II, Part II)
So, Adam Smith favored a progressive tax system. While it's likely he did not favor soaking the rich in taxes, he did believe that the rich, having a more vested interest in a stable society, should pay more to protect that interest. In other words, you gots more land, you pays more to hire police to protect that land.- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Exactly! Adam Smith's capitalism model also relies on laws (can't assassinate the competition), regulation, etc. It is also predicated on a freedom of information, e.g. "That food contains X".
A huge chunk of our tax (and the loans that it is paying the debt off of) actually goes towards either economic things which the rich mostly benefit from, or from national defense, which again the rich mostly benefit from. (If China were to invade, who would lose the most?)
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Exactly! Adam Smith's capitalism model also relies on laws (can't assassinate the competition), regulation, etc. It is also predicated on a freedom of information, e.g. "That food contains X".
- AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11A lot of the methods to earn money aren't exactly honestly earned. Whipping your employees down, paying them peanuts, so you can reap the fruits of their labor, is not exactly honest work. Paying your employees fair wages and treating them well is another story. But read the article again - the rich are getting richer, yet paying people less and less. They're getting richer partly by cutting employee salaries, because they can.
My problem with the rich is when they treat everyone else like ***** and their employees like non-humans, just to create a larger divide between us and them to make themselves feel more elite and special. - Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4the federal reserve is not honestly owned and operated. and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is definitely not an honest enterprise.
It's always a good thing to look on the bright side, but we've been in the dead of night for a long time. I think its time to wake up. - sjaaksken, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What I don't get is why Americans always think there's either extreme capitalism or communism, and because they prefer capitalism over communism forget that there's A BIG SPECTRUM in between.
Extreme capitalism like (most of) the USA promotes has very little to do with democracy, since theoretically in an utopian's democracy the wealth would be equally spread over 100% of the population. A lot of people are trying to get rich, no matter what, even if they have to bring ten other people down. A society that idealizes richness over any other social goal will only get what it wants so bad: a concentration of money with a select group of the population at the cost of the majorities social benefits. Smith's invisible hand shouldn't be followed as dogmatic as it is right now. At a given point there has to be a mechanism to share the wealth amongst every layer of the population. What Smith's invisible hand theory doesn't take into account is that a select group of people has enough power to influence macro economic factors to their own benefit and when that happens the theory loses most of its relevance. The main goal for a democracy shouldn't be to concentrate as much money as possible individually but to spread the wealth as equally as possible. I doubt that is happening right now, let alone that the government is taking measures to make this actually happen in the feature.- Corvidae, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1For every man that lives in luxury, 40 must live in poverty. You can delay, defer or exaggerate it. In the end though, no matter what you do, living a life without toil will cause others to do so. The greater the luxury and the further for actual labor you get, the more people you put in poverty.
The problem in the US right now is that no one can see that only an extreme few can actually see the costs of the way they are living as it gets deferred across the globe. It makes 'extreme capitalism' seem more acceptable. The same way Iraqi's dying in the streets become just numbers to most people, because it's happening on the other side of the planet. The more you distance the costs, the less they seem.
- Corvidae, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1For every man that lives in luxury, 40 must live in poverty. You can delay, defer or exaggerate it. In the end though, no matter what you do, living a life without toil will cause others to do so. The greater the luxury and the further for actual labor you get, the more people you put in poverty.
- Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -19/+61And this is why tax laws favor the rich. Everyone expects that they'll be rich someday. Your odds of becoming rich are virtually nil, unless you are born into money, marry into money or are insanely lucky.
- StudsTurkel, on 10/10/2007, -14/+21I really don't understand how people can think that it is "fair" to take more money from people, let alone taking MORE money from people based on the fact that they have more of it.
- btgoss, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3It would be more "fair"; a flat percentage from everyone equally, with no way of hiding it would be fair.
If you make 10K a year your percentage would still be a fair amount of money to you, the person who makes 100K should pay the same percentage, not total amount. That is fair.
The person who makes 100K is still going to be living much better then the person making 10K. It is really very obvious, even a Republican should be able to figure it out.- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8People making $10K a year can barely pay for all the things they need to survive. Someone earning that little spends every single dime they make on living necessities. That is why the tax rate for earnings up to $15100 is 10%. People making more than that still spend a considerable amount of money for everyday living expenses. That is why the tax rate goes up to 15% for amounts between $15100 and $61300. Higher up the scale are people with more free money to spend. That is why the tax rate increases as it goes up. The more money people have, the more the tax rate increases for that ADDITIONAL amount. Someone making $200K pays 10% up to $15100, 15% on the additional to $61300, 25% on the additional to $61300, 28% on the additional to 123700, and then 33% on the rest. The rich can afford more than the poor. THAT is far more fair than a flat rate, which would literally kill the poor.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Your logic only works for the really poor. What about everyone from the middle class up? Who cares if the rich can afford it more than the middle ... The rich have earned it, or their parents earned it ... either way they are deserving of the fruits of their labor.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Paris Hilton has so much free money that she could lose half of it and it wouldn't change her lifestyle one bit. Hell, she could lose most of it, excluding around $10M, and it wouldn't change her lifestyle. If someone making $40K lost half their money, that would be a major blow and could cause bankruptcy. Forget that vacation. Forget sending the kids to college. Forget that second car for the wife. Forget that new TV. Forget piano lessons for Junior. Choose between paying the electric bill or paying for the medicine you need to survive.
The rich pay more because it financially hurts them less. The rich pay more because they benefit more from the security of our society. The rich pay more because they have better lives and without our government and without the dollar, their investments would fail, and they'd have to live like the rest of us. - PA42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0It's interesting that you brought up Hilton, because she makes millions a year on her own marketing, but I digress.
Once again I agree with you on the very poor and I am not suggesting losing half of their money. But if their was a flat tax of 20% with a break for only the poor then the middle class still gets the piano lessons for junior, etc. Then you make a consumption tax based on spending with an increase in taxes for unnecessary items. So now when Paris wants to get a $500k dog house she pays extra taxes, but if she wants to save her money she can do that to ... same for the middle class.
Also, your benefit from society line is *****. the poor and middle class would also have worse lives without the government and a lot of money goes to helping them. The police in bad neighborhoods, public housing, the school system and a whole slew of other programs. Plus, the super rich would be fine without the dollar and the government, they are rich enough to take their money elsewhere - XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3A 20% flat tax would be a tax INCREASE for people making under $61300. The middle class would be cutting something out of their budget. It wouldn't effect the rich whatsoever. Rather, that'd be a HUGE tax cut for them.
Without the dollar and the government, the rich would be just as poor as everyone else because their investments would be *****. They could move to another country, but they wouldn't be taking their money with them. Further, anyone else in the US could move along with them.
And here's a newsflash: police, public housing, the school system, and other programs dramatically help the rich.
The police keep our country a safe place so that the rich aren't mugged every time they walk outside, their children aren't kidnapped everyday for ransom money, and civil order keeps the poor from raiding their houses. The poor don't worry about these things since you can't steal from someone who has nothing.
Public housing helps the rich because if everyday citizens didn't have housing, there would be riots in the street. The rich would have to stay inside their gated communities with armed guards protecting them, just like in third world countries.
The school system helps the rich because it provides free education and training for the workers in their corporations.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8People making $10K a year can barely pay for all the things they need to survive. Someone earning that little spends every single dime they make on living necessities. That is why the tax rate for earnings up to $15100 is 10%. People making more than that still spend a considerable amount of money for everyday living expenses. That is why the tax rate goes up to 15% for amounts between $15100 and $61300. Higher up the scale are people with more free money to spend. That is why the tax rate increases as it goes up. The more money people have, the more the tax rate increases for that ADDITIONAL amount. Someone making $200K pays 10% up to $15100, 15% on the additional to $61300, 25% on the additional to $61300, 28% on the additional to 123700, and then 33% on the rest. The rich can afford more than the poor. THAT is far more fair than a flat rate, which would literally kill the poor.
- Rustbelt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Those taxes pay to service and defend the country that provides the opportunity to make the money. Without that opportunity no amount of smarts will allow you to accumulate wealth. Asking people that have benefited the most to pay a larger proportion of their income to service and defend the country is only fair.
- aceman118, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1So if I somehow come into a large sum of money using the internet via my ISP would it be fair for my ISP to charge me more because I benefited more from their service? I would sue.
- AndrewMHagan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0I completely disagree with you, but that's a hell of a good point.
Damn you for making me think! - PJ1967, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Paying an ISP for their service is not the same as paying taxes. If someone uses this internet thingy you speak of to hack your system and steal from you, the ISP isn't going to do ***** about it. However, the FBI would. Who do you think pays the FBI?
It would also seem likely to me that your online business would require a business level internet service as opposed to a stricly "residential" one. If you tried to use a residential service, the ISP would likely notice your usage and either throttle your bandwidth and/or force you to purchase a more expensive "business" service. - Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Not quite. The reason it seems provocative is actually because *that's not the contract*.
Plus, you could always go to another ISP (e.g. emigrate)
If you stay, it's because you're either too poor to emigrate (and don't get hurt by the change) or because the ISP is *just that good*.
- AndrewMHagan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0I completely disagree with you, but that's a hell of a good point.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Wrong. Most of the incomtaxes we pay go to pay the interest on the national debt which is a whole other monster those in governemtn are not willing to deal with.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And why is our debt out of control? Because Republicans have been spending outrageously for military hardware and services to defend this country while simultaneously cutting taxes.
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"for military hardware and services to defend *some other* country"
FTFY
- MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"for military hardware and services to defend *some other* country"
- aceman118, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1So if I somehow come into a large sum of money using the internet via my ISP would it be fair for my ISP to charge me more because I benefited more from their service? I would sue.
- laserdog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5If "fair" means lowering the taxes on the rich and raising them on the poor to make up for it, then "fair" means "not economically inciting the lower and middle class into revolt against the government".
When you start your own government from scratch you can institute whatever you like, but this current one has baggage that make that unfeasible. - Chunken, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I like Mike Gravel's solution. Tax people on what they spend, not what they make. All problems solved. It would make too much sense for our government though.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hmm. I dunno. At least for starters, It's a feasibility issue. It's much harder to track, compared to a largely wage-driven workforce.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4We already have that. It's called sales tax. And it's highly regressive. The poor tend to spend every single dime to live. The rich sit on most of their money, hardly spending anything as a percentage of their earnings. So, the poor would end up paying a higher percentage than the rich.
- JacksonBlack, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0It's hardly regressive, especially if you exempt the necessities that the poor spend almost the entirety of their income on. The rich don't "sit on their money," they invest it. The companies they invest in buy things and pay sales tax on them.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A regressive tax is defined as a tax which hurts the poor more than the rich. And yes, sales tax is regressive. When you're spending every single dime in order to live, an extra tax on that spending hurts you more than someone who has plenty of extra money.
- JacksonBlack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0"When you're spending every single dime in order to live, an extra tax on that spending hurts you more than someone who has plenty of extra money."
You're being disingenuous. Poor people -- who are actually poor, not who merely aren't millionaires -- spend 85+% of their income on rent and food. If those things aren't taxed then they're paying taxes on less than 15% of their income. It's pretty hard to get much lower than that sort of not paying taxes at all. By contrast, the super rich spend big money on private jets and fancy cars that are taxed. They also invest a lot of it, which goes to companies who use it to buy things they pay sales tax on, which comes out of the rich guy's return. Eventually the rich people will want to spend that money and will sell the investment and buy something else, which they'll likely pay sales taxes on again. Explain to me how that hurts poor people more than taxes on wages and especially social security tax.
- AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The rich are also the ones with the huge tax breaks we regular folk don't get. When you get to write off the taxes paid on your new yacht or interest paid on your mansion, is it fair that the burden to make up for this falls onto those who have never even stepped a foot on a yacht or in a mansion because they can't afford it?
- aadyss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'm sure you are supporting the nation with all of the taxes you pay.
- haleym, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's fair because most of them probably have more money than they deserved in the first place. The money you have is nothing more than a number symbolizing what society owes you. This statistic is basically saying that, in the average group of 400 people, 1 of them has contributed enough to society to be owed as much the other 399 have. There might be some exemplary cases where that's true, but there's no way that's the average. As such, we have to assume that most of these 1 in 400 folk got way more than they deserved to begin with (for whatever reason), so it's only fair that some of that be taken back to compensate for those flaws.
- btgoss, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3It would be more "fair"; a flat percentage from everyone equally, with no way of hiding it would be fair.
- outhouseinput, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15Sure, capitalism makes everyone unequally rich, and thus tax cuts benefit people disproportionately. But wouldn't you agree that regardless of how much they help, that they help more than they hurt, even to the poor?
It seems like just because someone gets something better than you, you feel that you have to make it so that nobody can get it. Well, my friend, that is not smart.- kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1tax cuts don't help. It makes our debt grow larger due to the fact that for the last 12 years when the republicans were in power. They cut taxes, and then spent outrageous amounts of money on military hardware.
I'm getting tired of this tax cut bullcrap. It only helps the rich. Stop iwth this whole compromising ***** moderate *****.
Moderate in politics = no ***** balls.
It means you side step or tip toe real issues. You don't take a stance, and you don't want to clamp down.
Most Americans are moderates because they hate conflict, and politics involves conflict to find solutions.
This is why this country is in the condition it is in right now. Many Americans don't want to argue things when they should've. They should have done things when they could. Now it is too late.
The problems the US have is unfixable. - kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1tax cuts don't help. It makes our debt grow larger due to the fact that for the last 12 years when the republicans were in power. They cut taxes, and then spent outrageous amounts of money on military hardware.
I'm getting tired of this tax cut bullcrap. It only helps the rich. Stop iwth this whole compromising ***** moderate *****.
Moderate in politics = no ***** balls.
It means you side step or tip toe real issues. You don't take a stance, and you don't want to clamp down.
Most Americans are moderates because they hate conflict, and politics involves conflict to find solutions.
This is why this country is in the condition it is in right now. Many Americans don't want to argue things when they should've. They should have done things when they could. Now it is too late.
The problems the US have is unfixable.
- kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1tax cuts don't help. It makes our debt grow larger due to the fact that for the last 12 years when the republicans were in power. They cut taxes, and then spent outrageous amounts of money on military hardware.
- arjung, on 10/10/2007, -10/+20i'm sorry, but i disagree.
let's say i make a million dollars a year (not cap gains) and therefore have to pay $250K in taxes.
you make 50K and therefore have to pay 10K or less in taxes.
we get the same benefit from the govt and you pay 1/25 what i pay... how is that fair???- TheHydrogens, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3So what your saying is that everybody should pay the same amount! Brilliant! Now lets see.... if every person pays the same taxes, everybody pays $40k a year (just pulling a number out of my ass). That sounds totally reasonable that we don't make it proportional.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Why not a simple flat tax and be done with the BS? If this really were about fairness then that would be the only option.
- Rustbelt, on 10/10/2007, -5/+220% versus 25% isn't really that far apart. However, the $750,000 you have left versus my $40,000 will allow you to live better.
- PA42, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0so what? why shouldn't he live better ... he managed to earn it
- g30ff, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The problem with that argument is that you're assuming you're both deriving equal benefit from the government. If you are pulling $250k while the other fellow is pulling $50k I'd say that by definition you have derived much greater benefit from the protection, infrastructure and educational opportunies that the government provides. It is perfectly fair that your tax rate reflects that fact.
I've know many people who were well to do and many people who are varying degrees of poor. I would *never* say that those two groups derive equal benefits, and despite all the whining by affluent folks about welfare and other social programs, the poor are the ones who benefit much less. - Blah_Blah_Blah, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1i think it would be good if lets say a population pays a percentage of their income as tax and then after a certain income lets say 1 million, it would be a flat cost.
So for example if you make 500,000 a year or more you pay 50,000 in taxes and if you make less you pay 10%. that way your not raping anyone. - tweetsa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+010% would mean a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE tax cut for the rich which would mean a HUGE HUGE HUGE amount of money the gov't loses in taxes, which means roads, police, schooling and everything else funded by public tax money goes down the *****. One way to help this problem is to cut social programs
but when you make poor people's lives even poorer by cutting social programs, they start revolting, crime goes up and things start heading south
- justinjstark, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8"Profit and democracy are so contrary that there is no scope for comment. The aim of democracy is to leave people free to decide how they live and to make any political choices concerning them. Making a profit is a disease in our society, based on specific organizations. A decent, ethical society would pay only marginal attention to profits." --Noam Chomsky
- loki49152, on 10/10/2007, -16/+6Yeah, Chomsky isn't really an intellectual. Thanks for reminding us of that.
- yutt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Nice ad hominem lacking any rational argument. You truly are "an intellectual".
- aloser, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Dugg for the irony of your comment.
- yutt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Nice ad hominem lacking any rational argument. You truly are "an intellectual".
- korvan504521, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1and then people would only have a marginal reason to work hard.
- loki49152, on 10/10/2007, -16/+6Yeah, Chomsky isn't really an intellectual. Thanks for reminding us of that.
- masamunecyrus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2While it may be that some are undeservedly rich, taxing the rich disproportionately compared to everyone else is just as unfair to them as it is to any of the rest of us.
- g30ff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I don't see why those who derive the most benefit from the status quo shouldn't be the ones who pay for it. Society doesn't do much for the poor, so why should they pay for it?
- DruSam, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2The poor don't pay much of any taxes in the first place, it's the middle class that gets hit.
- g30ff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Very well, the middle class don't derive the same benefit as the filthy rich, so why should their tax rates be the same?
- zacharytelschow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The rich aren't benefiting from "society," they're benefiting from their own proper investment, use of money, planning, and willingness to take risks. Why should they have to pay proportionally more taxes than anyone else? The higher the taxes are for the rich, the lower their incentive will be to invest their money (why put money on the line and risk losing it when the government is going to take 60 cents of every dollar). Instead of investing or trying to start new businesses, if their incentive is removed, the rich will simply sit on their money.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, it's not unfair to tax the rich at a higher rate. The poor need every penny they make because they don't earn enough to live. The middle class are better off, but certainly don't have extra money. The rich have extra money and can afford to pay more. That additional tax does not change their lifestyle at all. They don't have to give up their yacht because they pay a higher percentage in taxes.
- g30ff, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I don't see why those who derive the most benefit from the status quo shouldn't be the ones who pay for it. Society doesn't do much for the poor, so why should they pay for it?
- CraigJ, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7What is comical and really sad is that you have no clue what you are talking about. educate yourself about who pays taxes and how much.
- RobN, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12What openthink ignores is how much of the income taxes come from this tiny percentage of people who benefited "disproportionately." Democrats are fond of pointing out that 50% of the tax cuts went to the super-rich, while ignoring that 90% of the taxes are paid by that same group -- which means the tax cuts disproportionally helped the non-rich!
Of course, this article isn't talking about taxes at all, which makes the poster's comments idiotic. Then again, the headline is wrong too, since half the revenues don't go to the richest quarter percent, but rather half of all the GAINS went to that group -- which makes sense, because a 0.1% increase in income for someone making a million a year would be greater in actual dollars (at $10,000 per million) than a 20% increase in income for most of us.
Don't let people get away with playing games with percentages and proportions unless they give you ALL the relevant numbers.- RobN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Damn. I missed a decimal point. A 1% increase (not 0.1%) in income for someone making a million a year is $10,000 -- equal to more than a 20% increase in income for most of us (assuming median income of $50,000 a year or less).
- vypergts, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I wish I could digg you up repeatedly for presenting a valid point with facts to back you up. Unfortunately this is digg...
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Of course the majority of the taxes come from the wealthy. The top 300,000 people in this country hold more wealth and earn more than the bottom 150,000,000 people. Yes, that's the top 0.1% having more than the bottom 50%. Even a low percentage of half a billion dollars is more than some people will make, let alone contribute in taxes, over a lifetime. And yes, there are groups of people out there making that much in a year.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3openthink, you are a liar and a propagandist. If someone doesn't benefit from a tax cut, it's because they weren't paying much if any taxes to begin with
- throop77, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So, if they cut the capital gains tax by 50% (which they did), that hugely benefits Paris Hilton, whose income comes solely from capital gains and benefits myself, none. Meanwhile, I am still paying 35% income tax and working to pay off my student loans. That is one example of a tax cut benefitting the rich much, much more than anyone else.
- Riemannian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0LOL @ you paying 35% marginal income tax; do you make over 200k?
- throop77, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0double post
- throop77, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So, if they cut the capital gains tax by 50% (which they did), that hugely benefits Paris Hilton, whose income comes solely from capital gains and benefits myself, none. Meanwhile, I am still paying 35% income tax and working to pay off my student loans. That is one example of a tax cut benefitting the rich much, much more than anyone else.
- nicepants, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2If you want to talk statistics:
48.5% of ALL personal income tax in 2005 was paid by those making $100,000 per year or more....even though they only make up 10% of the population. (Source IRS.gov)- AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Because those making $100k per year or more are the business owners. 10% of the population pays nearly half of all income tax, yet half of the money made for to 1/4% of people. Think about it. They're paying less of their incomes in taxes due to all their tax breaks than the average American who is just squeezing by,
- Dewhead, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The tax laws are encouraging the business owners to reinvest into their company and thereby creating jobs and helping the economy. Unlike the bottom rung which only takes and doesn't contribute (economically) to the country.
- AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Because those making $100k per year or more are the business owners. 10% of the population pays nearly half of all income tax, yet half of the money made for to 1/4% of people. Think about it. They're paying less of their incomes in taxes due to all their tax breaks than the average American who is just squeezing by,
- flycatcher, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Tax cuts really aren't gonna make a difference, since growing numbers of Americans are getting hit by AMT, where these cuts don't apply. It's all white wash.
- AriaStar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just say it. "Poor people."
- Shinigami87, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4I plan on being part of the 0.25 percent, and I'll deserve every penny of that money. Why? Because I went to school, put in the hard work, and came out on top. If you want more money, work harder.
- DaveF, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1According some of these guys, hard work has little to do with it. All people are equal. If you become more well off than someone else, its because you had better access to government services and protection. Since you had more help from the government, you should pay more taxes. %/
- maxtangent, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Do you have any idea how many jobs I worked my ass off only to see some boot licker get promoted passed me?
Hard work does not guarantee success.- Dewhead, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Gee maxtangent---could it be your negative attitude holding you back?
- maxtangent, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Do you have any idea how many jobs I worked my ass off only to see some boot licker get promoted passed me?
- Dewhead, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1shinigami87--
good for you. There isn't any reason why you shouldn't be. Alot of people seem to think that there is only so much money and if someone else is rich then that just means that there is less for someone else which is BS.
- DaveF, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1According some of these guys, hard work has little to do with it. All people are equal. If you become more well off than someone else, its because you had better access to government services and protection. Since you had more help from the government, you should pay more taxes. %/
- bacon_skoda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What is sad is the state with the worst unemployment became the deciding state in the last presidential election and opted to vote for W.
- brundlefly76, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5.25% are all of the small and large business owners and investors who are *GENERATING* the money through commerce.
The other 99.75% are just employees who wouldnt even have a job if it werent for the hard work and risk taking of the top .25%
In return for their risks and hard work, the .25% get rich. If you didnt give them the opportunity get rich, why would they bother taking business risk?
This is also why tax cuts benefit everyone - more money for businesses to invest in themselves, more money for loans = business growth, and guess what, when businesses grow they need employees, equipment, fuel, services, etc - and that leads to employment, and then unemployment goes down, and then wages go up. Then people spend more, then business does better...
Didnt anyone on digg take economics?
Digg always feels so socialist.
If you want, we can go to a socialist economy, where everyone is so heavily taxed that running a business is like pounding your head against a wall, so either no one bothers or they keep 2 sets of books.- leunghoi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My parents work in a factory making a living wages. When the boss can't get any order in, they stay home and don't collect salary. Economics taught them that it's ok to give up food for the rich. That's fair?
The very basic price setting theory (the invisible hand theory) does not work in this country. The invisible hand theory requires perfect information, the advertising business ensures that we don't have perfect information. We have one "Super Size Me" movie, one "Fast Food Nation" book and how many commercials from McDonald's?
Economics would work if we have perfect information, but the riches are controlling the information to their advantages. All Murdoch's news sources support the Iraq invasion right before the invasion. People are let lead to believe the Iraq war is better for their country. Our young people give up their lives on these beliefs. How is that economically sound?- aadyss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0give up food for the rich?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Get a little life under your belt. It might help your logic.
- leunghoi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My parents work in a factory making a living wages. When the boss can't get any order in, they stay home and don't collect salary. Economics taught them that it's ok to give up food for the rich. That's fair?
- muchachoburacho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1A whole hell of a lot of people work hard other than .25% of americans. Do you people honestly think that only 1 in 4000 people in this country work hard? I agree that people earn the money they make, and the rich will always be rich, but seriously come on. When there are working families in this country who can't afford shelter or food, there is something seriously wrong with the world.
- brundlefly76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Oh certainly I would say most Americans work very hard - didnt want to give that impression at all.
The point I was trying to make is that there is a reason the top .25% make more money - its that individual incentive that fuels our entire economy.
Start taking bigger bites out of that incentive, and small business volume drops and we all have fewer jobs and less money.
It similar to the debate in California over whether small businesses need to offer certain basic benefits to full time employees - which is such a burden on small business that they have stopped creating employees and start outsourcing and contracting rather then creating jobs.
- Rahodeb, on 10/10/2007, -29/+63I don't begrudge the rich their money, as long as it is honestly earned. I hope to be one of them someday, and I don't need some communist ideal of what's fair used to take what I have worked hard for.
- Pssdoff, on 10/10/2007, -30/+114Not one cent collected by the Income Tax goes to ANY government program whatsoever.
ALL the money collected via Income Tax goes directly to pay interest on the national debt.
Currently the system we have ensures that the National Debt can never be paid off EVER.
Watch these to understand the evils of The Federal Reserve.
Fiat Empire
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5232639329002339531
Monopoly Men
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7065177340464808778
The Money Masters
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...earch&plindex=0- yubman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+38Why not get the information from the horses mouth. The Grace Commission called for by Pres Reagan noted that all income taxes go to the national debt (aka Federal Reserve) back in the 80's.
http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm
"100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government. "- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2There are zillions of other taxes which make up for that. The US government can quite easily create a surplus to take care of infrastructure, health care, education, etc when their economy is booming. However the government chooses to spend it on a pointless war.
- bugowner, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4You obviously don't know ***** about Economics, the Fed doesn't do the distribution of revenues, that's the IRS, plus the Fed just handles money, they nothing have to do with taxation and distribution of wealth. The bottom line is the unequal distribution of wealth through wacko public policy that is dominated an controlled by 1% of the wealthiest population.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1You have shown us you should have failed whatever econ classes you may have taken.
- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's funny how people seem to cancel out common sense and trivial facts to support their believe in a conspiracy. ( http://xkcd.com/258/ )
The government has income (taxes, not just income taxes) and spendings (many things, not just interest). It's not your income tax that is used to pay for the public debt, it's just a part of the total budget.
- robo73, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5So who keeps fixing my.....and funding the war in I...... and fixing my highway. And giving all the stupid money everywhere.
It's called CREDIT. IT'S a Loan. No one will ever call us on it, and if they do we will borrow enough money to destroy them,
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TO ANOTHER COUNTRY BESIDE THE US? You get less and you pay more.- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"You get less and you pay more."
It's true :(
- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"You get less and you pay more."
- NoTiG, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2The money taxed from income gets reimbursed to the treasury by the fed... so that is not accurate ... but it would be far better to have a system where the government was not in debt to anyone. They could do this if they printed their own currency, then taxed it back from circulation (like King Henry in the money masters video) .
The real scam comes not from the public sector but the private sector.. where they create money from nothing.. and charge interest. They have a few expenses (like paying interest to depositors) but they are not lending out depositors money. All money earns interest to them, yet not all money is in deposit accounts. so A. alot less money is being paid by them on interest in these deposits than they are earning B. you earn alot less interest when you deposit your money in a bank account, then banks charge debtors
www.teslam.net/me.htm
Flaherty: Nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.
My reply: Here is another half-truth that is a whopper deception. It is true that most of the money paid by the government for interest on the national debt is returned to the government. That is because the Fed’s charter requires any interest payments in excess of the Fed’s actual operating expenses to be refunded. However, before we jump to the conclusion that this is a wonderful benefit, we must remember that the banking cartel is able to use tax dollars to pay 100% of its operating expenses with few questions asked about the nature of those expenses. After all of those expenses are paid, what is left over is rebated to the Treasury, as Flaherty says. There is no secret about this, and you will find an explanation of it in my book. Technically, there is no “profit” on this money. However, remember that creating money for the government is only one of the functions of the Fed. The real bonanza comes, not from money created out of nothing for the government, but from money created out of nothing by the commercial banks for loans to the private sector. That’s where the real action is. This is the famous slight-of-hand trick. Distract attention with one hand while the coin is retrieved by the other. By focusing on the supposed generosity of the Fed by returning unused interest to the Treasury, we are supposed to overlook the much larger river of gold flowing into the member banks in the form of interest on nothing as a result of consumer and commercial loans.
Flaherty: Hypothesis: - coustoe, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Maybe if you read instead of watched google and youtube videos you would know something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Public_debt_per_GDP_1791-2006.svg
Post WW2 the national debt was dropped from 120% of GDP to 38% of GDP.
The reason why national debt is higher is because of taxes. Notice before the inception of 16 amendment (income tax) we had virtually no national debt. But with inception of the new deal socilization of the government national debt has bloomed.- reddikilowatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Don't forget, standing army, interest on the world war debts that were never paid back (which is why Europe looks so good now... they paid off their WWII debt), Cold war, war on drugs, lawyer fees, the CIA, FBI, and air conditioning for the capitol.
- hendo1769, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Correlation and causation....
- Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Can we start the revolution now?
- Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He forgot the google video: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
- tybris, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The US public debt as a percentage of the GDP is quite normal and the money doesn't disappear but goes to the bond holders, which could in fact be you. The state debt actually can be paid off as it will keep shrinking as a percentage of the GDP as the economy grows and inflation devaluates the debt. If it doesn't grow, it will simply vanish.
Furthermore loans are a very important element of modern economies as it allows entrepreneurs, companies and governments to set up projects and support the growth of the real economy: people, services, products, assets, trade, etc (money is just the glue). Loans are actually more useful to the economy than cash, as entrepreneurs can't waste it without facing consequences. (and in a healthy democracy, governments can't either)
Your only problem is that the current government has spent so much money in such a short time that the US needed a very big sponsor to buy all its state bonds: China. China now gets your income tax, but that's hardly a conspiracy of bankers. You voted for that when you put a bunch of power hungry morons in the White House.
- yubman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+38Why not get the information from the horses mouth. The Grace Commission called for by Pres Reagan noted that all income taxes go to the national debt (aka Federal Reserve) back in the 80's.
- dukeeeey, on 10/10/2007, -20/+52Reminds me of globalisation. Poverty is exported. Stuff is made by slaves, and the people who run the companies at the top make enormous profits. And because the imported goods are so cheap, no one in the local countries can compete and so go bust. Then they all end up working for walmart for min wage.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9This IS globalisation - the US posesses 1/4 of the world's wealth.
- vfrex, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Yeah, poor slaves who are making substantially more from MNC than they would have otherwise...
- mcduckov, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Quite right. And i'm sure the managers tell themselves that they are making the world a better place and earning a fair wage for it. Still, one has to wonder if they have some trouble sleeping at night.
- vfrex, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0By what logic? 99% (made up stat!) live in better conditions than the "slaves" that we are viciously exploiting. Much of the world lives worse off than the majority of Americans. We should ALL have trouble sleeping at night.
- mcduckov, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Quite right. And i'm sure the managers tell themselves that they are making the world a better place and earning a fair wage for it. Still, one has to wonder if they have some trouble sleeping at night.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What you are saying is essentially true. The system we have in place can not work w/o the existance of a poor or worker class. We see how it works here inthe US and we can see how it works world wide. Why can we pay the low prices we pay for those items we so much enjoy? Because they are made in countries "poor" countries. If those items were made here int he US teh prices we pay would be VERY different. If the quality of life in all countries became equal to that of the US and other "first world" countries the system we have in place woudl crumble. Where would the cheap labor come from to keep us supplied with affordable goods? China has been the worlds cheap manufacturer for a very long time. That is changing as we speak. With the growing Chinese economy the world will eventually have to look for another source of very cheap labor. I'm not saying this is bad or good. It is what it is. You can scream for "equality" all you like but at least acknowledge the fact that you too are benifiting from the exploitatioin of people in wrose situations than you are. Our poor (USA) are still pretty damn well off compared to many other nations. Every system has it's good and it's bad. Capitalism is what has helped those of us in the western world and specially here int he US live llifestyles we live today. Why is that? Personally I feel it is because it mirrors life in the real world.
- DesuKN, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, they think they do. All of it is borrowed from somewhere else. It is virtual wealth that will pop one day. Good luck with that.
- vfrex, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Yeah, poor slaves who are making substantially more from MNC than they would have otherwise...
- mydigga, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Don't forget all those cheap goods now contain LEAD!
- Yokwe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Many people who complain about overseas slave labor are in many cases are the same ones who do not pass up the bargain prices. Although I have sympathy for the plight of some of the overseas labor what is a better alternative? Insisting on higher wages for them thereby negating the cost savings which is why the plant was built there in the first place or providing a job even at very low wages.
- jitterbits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Tariffs used to be applied to things produced overseas. If a company wanted to claim they were producing goods there because it couldn't be done here (Americans won't do that job!!!), that was fine, but they had to pay the difference in tariffs. Is our level of consumption really necessary? Does it improve the quality of our lives to be able to buy tons of cheap goods that fall apart or poison us or just end up overflowing the landfills?
There are so many long term drawbacks to the over-consumption we "enjoy" daily.
- jitterbits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Tariffs used to be applied to things produced overseas. If a company wanted to claim they were producing goods there because it couldn't be done here (Americans won't do that job!!!), that was fine, but they had to pay the difference in tariffs. Is our level of consumption really necessary? Does it improve the quality of our lives to be able to buy tons of cheap goods that fall apart or poison us or just end up overflowing the landfills?
- Herostratos, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Poverty is exported? There are 74,000 people EVERY DAY escaping absolute poverty. Today 18.3 % of the global population is in poverty, vs 40.3 % in 1981. How is this an increase in poverty?
- nariposa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Source?
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4That so called slave labor was much poorer before they were given jobs that used to be done by overpaid Americans.
- DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4so now the formerly overpaid Americans are jobless and the people that sit at the top of the corporate ladder are making even more money now.
I'll tell you who the people are that are overpaid, the people at the top. Name one person that deserves a multi-million dollar a year salary. Do you think there are people out there that could do just as good of a job, if not better for less money (and if you don't, you're kidding yourself)?- Dewhead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The people who pay their salary think they are worth it--so what's it to you?
- nycmac247, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1"overpaid" hahaha do you live in your parents' basement?
- DangerMouse9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4so now the formerly overpaid Americans are jobless and the people that sit at the top of the corporate ladder are making even more money now.
- CptBuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah, because starting your own company is soooo hard. Globalization just means that your competing with more people, if the people at the top can handle that and you can't then they deserve the cash.
- rizla420, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1they were poorer financially, but they lived self sustaining life styles that didnt really need money. So we'd look at them as poor people, but they were self sustained. The fact that we have to "outsource" every part of our day to day living puts us at a big disadvantage if the global economy collapses. At least they can go till the land and kill some goats. Where are you going to get food if you live inthe city and the grocery stores are empty? Bread lines anyone?
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9This IS globalisation - the US posesses 1/4 of the world's wealth.
- airwalkery2k, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Like people who use a wallet full of credit cards that are about to reach their max, we are getting all the benefits today so it seems just dandy... but trouble looms in the future if this goes on for too long.
- keyboardduder, on 10/10/2007, -23/+15Watch Zeitgeist on youtube! Learn something!
- theshizzler, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11Learn how crazy some people are.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5I agree. You should watch it so you can learn how to identify *****. Hint: If it's in Zeitgeist, it's probably ***** (especially the 2nd and 3rd parts).
- forgiste, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5wait, what about zeitgeist is *****? Seems like all the claims in that movie are at least backed up by evidence, unlike your claim....
Give me one good example.- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The entire 9/11 conspiracy section, to start.
- forgiste, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5wait, what about zeitgeist is *****? Seems like all the claims in that movie are at least backed up by evidence, unlike your claim....
- hydroplane, on 10/10/2007, -16/+42Welcome to the Corporated States of America a Limited Liability Country
- Rahodeb, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Yes! Re-istribution of weath through legal action!
/sarc - zacharytelschow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." -- Thomas Jefferson
- Rahodeb, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Yes! Re-istribution of weath through legal action!
- readthis, on 10/10/2007, -20/+65Civilizations have proved that the health of a nation isn't how rich a few people are but by the distribution of wealth among all its citizens.
The USA wealth distribution was a diamond shape with the middle class in the middle. It is now becoming an hour glass with the middle class being pushed in the same space as the poor.
Warren Buffet said thanks but he didn't need the extra cash from the Bush tax breaks. Isn't it time we believe him?- vfrex, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Believe what? Of course the rich don't NEED the tax breaks. That isn't the point at all.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7FK Buffet, he's in a pretty nice place to start preaching socialism. All I know is 3% got taken off his rate and 3% got taken off mine at a 5 firgure salary.
- MrSketch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Warren Buffet also said that he only payed 17.7% in taxes last year (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html). The truly poor ($0-$7.8k) pay 10% and the poor ($7.8k-$31k) pay 15%, everyone else, except the super wealthy, pay more (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html).
- devinbunker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Some clarifications are needed on your comment about the IRS tax brackets:
1) They are talking about "taxable income", which is not the same thing as "gross income". This is very important, due to the large amounts of deductions that many people can take; if you're married, have 4 kids, make $40k/year, and file jointly, you might only have $16,500 in "taxable income". It gets even lower when you have other large deductions (i.e. you pay a mortgage, you donate to charity, etc...)
2) You need to read the fine print on the brackets. It doesn't say that you pay 15% if you have taxable income between $7.8k and $31k -- it says that you pay $782.50 + 15% of the amount over $7.8k. Thus, my example couple above with $16.5k in taxable income would pay $782.50 + $1,305.00 = $2,087.50. When compared to the $40k in gross income, that's effectively a 5% income tax rate, not 15%.
- devinbunker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Some clarifications are needed on your comment about the IRS tax brackets:
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1"The USA wealth distribution was a diamond shape with the middle class in the middle. It is now becoming an hour glass"
While I agree the middle class is being squeezed, what's up with those shapes? "Diamond shape"? On what graph? It's mainly become a steeper triangle.
http://home.comcast.net/~markthoma/Graphics/dist1.1.25.06.gif- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3P.S.: You can see important features around where the great depression occurred and about when Ronald Reagan was elected. Some argue we're being set up for another great depression.
Anyway, the rich/poor disparity is increasing significantly compared to the 1940's to 1980s.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3P.S.: You can see important features around where the great depression occurred and about when Ronald Reagan was elected. Some argue we're being set up for another great depression.
- Rustbelt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It's ridiculous that corporations are so shortsighted in chasing today's profits over tomorrow's. If they export jobs to countries with cheaper labor who will buy all their stuff when it is imported? If I'm making $8.00 an hour I'm not buying a new car, a computer or anything else. I'm worried about keeping the rent paid.
Just wait until they start offering 84 or 96 month car loans because of high prices and depressed wages.- frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How about the people with the lifetime mortgages? Where the bank owns your house, and you pay them for it for the rest of your life, leaving nothing for your children.
- Dewhead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Who has a lifetime mortgage? Anyway, I have a life insurance policy that will pay off everything when I die. I got it in my twenties and it was very cheap--$28 per month and its over 500K pay off if I die and a bunch of cash if I don't.
- orangysb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Study economics and the benefits of free trade and globalization before making such a comment, when businesses export jobs to countries with lower wages, citizens in your country as a whole benefit much more in lower prices in goods, this benefit far outweighs the few of the jobs lost in the your country. With this lower prices, people have more income to spend on other things, which in turn drive the economic growth, and provide you with other better opportunities in jobs.
- jitterbits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Where are all of these people getting their jobs to buy all of this wonderful, cheap stuff (that they probably don't really need anyway, but have been convinced by ad-men that they are must-have, life-altering products), now that they're being exported?
It's not just manufacturing. Look at what has happened and is happening with the IT industry.
- jitterbits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Where are all of these people getting their jobs to buy all of this wonderful, cheap stuff (that they probably don't really need anyway, but have been convinced by ad-men that they are must-have, life-altering products), now that they're being exported?
- frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How about the people with the lifetime mortgages? Where the bank owns your house, and you pay them for it for the rest of your life, leaving nothing for your children.
- panicofficer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Buffet is always welcome to put more into the pot... of course, bureaucrats are just going to spend it on pork projects.
- rizla420, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Most super wealthy people dont really work for a living earning a WAGE therefore dont pay conventional income tax like you and me. They have their investments that make them money and they only get charge captial gains, which is usually less than income tax.
- zacharytelschow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -- Thomas Jefferson
- chubbybubba, on 10/10/2007, -39/+46You guys should look into communism. Lets just make everyone equal without rich or poor. Let's give the means of making money to the "people". How bout this, why not just put everybody on welfare. Let's punish the people who work and pay taxes.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -24/+18 You Conservofascists want to concentrate 100% of the wealth in the top 1% of the country, I bet that will solve the problem! I love the smell of a delicious straw man argument in the morning.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -10/+12You're seriously going to bitch about straw man arguments while saying things like "Conservofascists want to concentrate 100% of the wealth in the top 1% of the country"? Or was that the point? If so, I apologize for taking you too literally.
- yutt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Top 1% 38.1%
Top 96-99% 21.3%
Top 90-95% 11.5%
Top 80-89% 12.5%
Top 60-79% 11.9%
General 40-59% 4.5%
Bottom 40% 0.2%
http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html
- yutt, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Top 1% 38.1%
- xrod, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6No, they simply think the top 0.25% contribute as much to society as the other 99.75% combined.
- shredluc, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Funny, after seeing how much the top 0.25% pay i would say that the contribute MORE than the other 99.75% combined.
- purdueAl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1why should the pay equal taxes when the take unequal amounts of the wealth!!! wealth created on the backs of the workers
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -10/+12You're seriously going to bitch about straw man arguments while saying things like "Conservofascists want to concentrate 100% of the wealth in the top 1% of the country"? Or was that the point? If so, I apologize for taking you too literally.
- ggtsu, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8So the choices are either be a poor, pissed off communist or be a poor, pissed of capitalist. Glad to see everyone at least gets to stick to their principles.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Conservatives don't seek out that goal, we just don't want liberal arts majors dicking with the economy to keep poor people poor so there is still a base for liberalism. You think welfare actually helps those who use it get on yoru feet? Funny how many people came out of poverty when welfare was reformed in the 90's.
- laserdog, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9You actually think people stay poor on purpose for free food and medicine?
- mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6Yes, because many of them just plain dont want to work.
- sjaaksken, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0"Funny how many people came out of poverty when welfare was reformed in the 90's."
And how many exactly? You have an exact figure and a comparison with the rest of the 'civilized' world? Europe is known for its welfare states and has way higher social security measures and yet poverty there is way lower than in the US... that 's a real life fact that contradicts what you just said....
There will always be people that profit from welfare. But the majority (!) of poor people are in fact just not in a position to get an income that's sufficient to live a decent life. It's rather cocky of you, thinking you're better cos you work but without having been where they 've been. I'm also sure that if alot you self claimed "hard irreplaceable workers" where put in the same conditions (poverty), you wouldn't last a month. There's just more to it than just not being employed.... off course that's not as easy as saying they're just lazy... no. It actually takes some humanity.
- laserdog, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9You actually think people stay poor on purpose for free food and medicine?
- laserdog, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14How about this, why don't we all start communicating in sarcastic hyperbole!
- bugowner, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8Acknowledging a flaw in the distribution of wealth doesn't mean communism IDIOT!, giving wealth away like the Bush Admon. does to the rich is a free ride. When you use a car, you have to give it maintenance, the same is for taxation. If you're using the system to make yourself rich, you have to give back, IT IS A VERY AMERICAN VALUE!!!
- vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Are you aware that with the Federal Reserve, military complex, and laws that generate government sponsored monopolies (telcos) the US economy looks very much like communism?
- BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8How about Yugoslavian-style socialism, where every business is owned by the people employed there and the profits are distributed according to personal contribution? This way, instead of apathetic wage slaves, you get people directly invested in the success of the business. Yes, the CEOs should make more than an average workers, but not 100x times more like they now do in this country.
- audomatix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5You idiot, most of the people who have money just pass it on to there children and so on and so on. I heard a report on public radio the other day saying that over 40 trillion dollars will be inherited over the next 5 to 6 years. Most of those people don't work for their money, it's handed to them. Why don't you start looking up rich peoples roots if you think it's *****. I'm tired of busting my ass all day struggling from paycheck to paycheck while ***** people like paris hilton or rupert murdoch live it up and control the mentality of millions simply because they are rich and able to. IF THIS WORLD GIVES TO YOU YOU SHOULD GIVE BACK, if you don't agree then ***** you, i hope your never rich ever.
- carlvjack, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Somebody had to make that money at some time so why don't you help your kids, get an education and let them inherit some money?
Not smart enough...thought so - Dewhead, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Are you high? Why shouldn't my kids get the money that we worked for all of our lives? They deserve it more than some welfare case.
- muchachoburacho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why do they??? Because they were born into the right family?? The advantage to being rich should be that you afford to get your kids the best education and give them an extra head start to earning their own money. Most of the rich in america do not earn their money as much as the poor, who get paid slave wages to do other people's work.
- carlvjack, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Somebody had to make that money at some time so why don't you help your kids, get an education and let them inherit some money?
- shupy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Well bubba, you are either very young and ignorant, or old and ignorant. Either way, unless you are independently wealthy you may someday face not having enough to get by. I'm guessing you are young and ignorant and living off your folks dime. Life humbles us all, remember your inane remarks when your turn comes.
But somehow I think you'll be whining the loudest.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -24/+18 You Conservofascists want to concentrate 100% of the wealth in the top 1% of the country, I bet that will solve the problem! I love the smell of a delicious straw man argument in the morning.
- theshizzler, on 10/10/2007, -16/+46Sounds to me like we should all be trying to be part of that .25 percent.
- s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -18/+12Except for the majority of us who actually have a soul.
- strafefire, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Because people like Warren Buffet don't donate BILLIONS to charities!
Nope, he's just eats babies, and drinks goats blood all day!- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Not to be contrarian, but the reason Buffett joined the Gates Foundation is because he realized it's a fantastic tax shelter for his fortune, as it is for Mr. Bill. Those billions they donate aren't actually all spent; rather, they spend a small chunk of it (less than it earns from interest) on the little people because it's less than they'd have to pay the federal government in taxes if it were invested for-profit, which means charity is a net gain for the uber-rich unless the market happens to be roaring at a 15% annual clip like last decade. (s it really "giving" if doing it saves them money?) I guess it's nice to help to help those needy Africans, but realize that it's at the expense of things like collapsing bridges and levees. I'm not a government apologist by any means, but you can't expect inflation to stay tame when wealth becomes more and more concentrated and harder and harder to collect in taxes.
Of course, it's hard to take profits on "charitable donations" like that other than if become an employee of the charity and start expensing everything in sight, but even then it's awful hard for one person to spend billions on business-related expenses. However, once Gates/Buffett brings wellness to a sub-Saharan community through "charity", they then invite a CEO pal from some textile manufacturer to visit Koofoofoomatutu, and he's so impressed that he opens a sweatshop there. Bill and Warren, of course, are major shareholders of Koofoo Clothing, and they thus reap nice profits off the labor of that "newly prosperous" community. So basically, non-profit charities are used by the elite to avoid taxes while setting up favorable conditions to get even more filthy rich from their FOR-profit investments. It's an economic bait-and-switch, and as usual it's we the working class who take it in the rear when inflation is used to tax us ALL to repair bridges and levees since the tax revenues aren't what they ought to be.
Here are a couple quick examples I scraped up of what I'm talking about:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-gatesx07jan07,1,5699306.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-gates8jan08,1,6903133.story?ctrack=2&cset=true - orangysb, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1dracostimpy - a person brainwashed to believe that whatever the rich people do, they do to exploit others and benefit themselves at any cost
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1orangysb - A person who thinks people worth $60 billion are content to become philanthropists. I'm merely pointing out the true economics of the situation... they will only help others if there's a dime to be made. You really think Bill Gates gives a ***** about Africans? He's just doing it to keep public opinion in favor of himself lest he be scorned for being the reincarnation of Scrooge. Once a greedy pig, always a greedy pig, not that there's anything wrong with that since it's not his job to save humanity. That's a job for Ron Paul!
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Not to be contrarian, but the reason Buffett joined the Gates Foundation is because he realized it's a fantastic tax shelter for his fortune, as it is for Mr. Bill. Those billions they donate aren't actually all spent; rather, they spend a small chunk of it (less than it earns from interest) on the little people because it's less than they'd have to pay the federal government in taxes if it were invested for-profit, which means charity is a net gain for the uber-rich unless the market happens to be roaring at a 15% annual clip like last decade. (s it really "giving" if doing it saves them money?) I guess it's nice to help to help those needy Africans, but realize that it's at the expense of things like collapsing bridges and levees. I'm not a government apologist by any means, but you can't expect inflation to stay tame when wealth becomes more and more concentrated and harder and harder to collect in taxes.
- strafefire, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Because people like Warren Buffet don't donate BILLIONS to charities!
- Novagenesis, on 10/10/2007, -13/+15Except there's little skill involved in reaching that .25 percent...It's luck. Innovative companies die only to have a similar copycat with a lower quality product explode. It's a roll of the dice, and the willingness to sin..nothing else.
- strafefire, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3It's not luck. Read books like "Good to Great", "The Purple Cow", and "Sharpening the Saw"
Good companies are flexible, with systems in place to change QUICKLY with the times...
Those companies that are lead by managers -- not entrepreneurs -- and have piss poor system die too...
**Learn how to trade stock (easier than you think, just that the media wants ytou to think that it hard so you fork over money to someone who in reality knows less about how to trade than you do hence this current mortgage crisis).
**Find a good direct sales/Network marketing company
**NOW is actually the best time to buy CASH FLOW real estate, not this flipping *****! Foreclosures are up!
**Learn how to trade currencies!
Just read a book, read a book, read a *****' book! - vfrex, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6Thats *****. Like it or not, you can make your own breaks in life. If you dedicate yourself towards preparing for your future in high school and college, you WILL live comfortably. Too many people live with the mindset that college is a 4 year party, and then expect life to fall into place when its over.
You don't start a company to become rich. People who do are going to be discontent with the results. You start a company because you have an idea and believe in a product. You do it because you would rather work 100 hours/week on your idea than 40 hours doing anything else. And you put in the proper time to develop a business plan, strategy, and outlook on just how the damn thing will progress. - Rustbelt, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2The lottery is luck. Innovation is hard work.
- krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3To get stinking rich you gotta be okay with assraping millions, if not billions of people. Some say it's skill and/or luck.
Not on this planet. - samssf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Novagenesis, you're a moron. Like Rustbelt said, the lottery is luck. The main reason people don't make any money is because they believe they don't have something that they need to be more successful. You just gotta have some skill, good character, and know what people want. Most people are just puppets that run around their whole lives on a damn string.
- strafefire, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3It's not luck. Read books like "Good to Great", "The Purple Cow", and "Sharpening the Saw"
- kinerry, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Exactly, stop complaining and do something with your life
- vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Do you know you are more likely to die in a car accident than every win the lottery or create a successful startup that makes you that much money. Google, Microsoft, and Apple are all success stories but what you don't see if the tens of thousands of starts ups that fail for every one that succeeds. Don't kid yourself, you will never get into that .25 percent.
However, don't cut yourself short and find out ways to avoid the system and at least get yourself in a position that you don't have to work for one of these people. Start your own business but don't expect to get rich off it, but live frugally and you'll know you'll never put your own blood and sweat for another silver spoon bastard.- samssf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1True, except I disagree that no one can be that successful. The problem is that most people are just stupid and let themselves be controlled by the world around them. People don't know anything about psychology. Psychology should be required in high school so that people can learn to control their emotions and do things that will allow them to achieve their goals rather than fall victim to propaganda, etc.
- appetite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Yes, because money is the measure of all things good, right? *****. There's no way in hell that .25 % of the country impacts half of the efficiency and productivity of the country. Think about that. Wealth is supposed to be produced by labor and innovation. Do you really think those people account for all that? No way in hell. Many of them are just greedy thieves. Look at the most profitable businesses right now: oil, pharmaceuticals, insurance, and military. And they're all doing a horrible job in terms of production and innovation.
- BabyWookie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Good luck with that. Let me know how it turns out for you.
- s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -18/+12Except for the majority of us who actually have a soul.
- 1ifbyclam2ifbyc, on 10/10/2007, -7/+21Wow some people need to learn the difference between revenue and profit. Revenue is how much a company takes in before costs and taxes.
- Coolwaters, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1WTF are you talking about? This article is about INCOME,
Income is a defined term. Ya pay taxes on it.
- Coolwaters, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1WTF are you talking about? This article is about INCOME,
- mv10, on 10/10/2007, -22/+18Thats fine. They earned it. However, let them play a s***load of taxes.
- Tenlow, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12That's what I want to know, what percentage of taxes are paid by that .25% of earners. I'm guessing it's more than 0.25% of all taxes.
- Tenlow, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8I guess i'm the only one who thinks they pay more taxes than the rest of us.
- wiggles, on 10/10/2007, -1/+112001 data shows that the top 5% earners pay 53% of the taxes collected by the federal government. The top 50% earners pay 96% of taxes collected by the government. Of course, that was before the Bush tax cuts, I'm not sure what it is now.
- DiggsOnlyJew, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6In 2005:
People who earned 1 million or more paid: $235,447,422,237.26
All income earners paid: $934,603,414,643.82
Approx. 25% of income taxes.- DiggsOnlyJew, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in11si.xls
- Zarxrax, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I think I read that the top 1% of taxpayers pay about 25% of the taxes.
- shupy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Well average CEO pay increased 25% in 2005. Average person's pay increased 3%. Sounds like the 1% are breaking even. The rest of us a sliding behind.
- Rahodeb, on 10/10/2007, -11/+2Flat tax FTW.
- GibZilla, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Replied to above, but:
Flat taxes favor the rich. Lets say you tax everyone at 35%, if you are poor and make $20,000 a year you pay $7000 in taxes and take home $13,000. If you make $40,000,000 you pay $14,000,000 in taxes and take home $26,000,000. Which of the two is easier to live on?- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Don't sit your ass in front of the TV then if 20,000 isn't a salary you desire.
- Yokwe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Well the tax rate would not be 35% it would be much lower probably around 10-15% maybe 20%
If you are at or below the poverty level you will still be at or below the poverty level and will be the one taking advantage of the social services provided by the tax dollars. - mykus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah, forget about the fact that all the flat tax proposals have been proposed to be a percentage over a certain annual income. I don't recall off the top of my head, but something like the first $20,000 or so would not be taxed at all. Only what you make over and above that, so in your example the person taking home $20,000 a year would pay no federal income taxes at all, and if they made $21,000 they would pay $350.00 in federal income taxes. While my base number is probably not accurate, I don't recall any of the flat tax proposals starting at the first dime or dollar.
- GibZilla, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Replied to above, but:
- StudsTurkel, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Yea, because they are evil people and deserve to pay for more!!! Those ***** assholes. Let's just make them pay 100%!!!!
- senatebuddy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2yeah, good idea. but be aware all the taxes go right back in their pockets anyway.
- franuzzz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0oh ok, so if you win the lottery and they tax you 75% you will be ok with that?
- mv10, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3People who make $50,000 shouldnt pay the same amount of tax as someone who makes $250,000 (tax loopholes)..
- RunLikeTheWind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2they don't from DiggsOnlyJew's link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in11si.xls :
$50,000 to under $75,000 pay on average $5,307 income tax, or 13%
$200,000 to under $500,000 pay on average $58,339 income tax, or 24.3%
Where's the factual support for tax laws favoring the rich?
- RunLikeTheWind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2they don't from DiggsOnlyJew's link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in11si.xls :
- mv10, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3People who make $50,000 shouldnt pay the same amount of tax as someone who makes $250,000 (tax loopholes)..
- CraigJ, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7they do pay a ***** of taxes. The top 1% of earners in the US pat 36% of all taxes.
- Tenlow, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12That's what I want to know, what percentage of taxes are paid by that .25% of earners. I'm guessing it's more than 0.25% of all taxes.
- EclipseAgent, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Now all I have to do is earn over a mil a year..
- isaactwito, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah, the figures don't really sound that absurd when you look at the ratios of how many times more the people in this article make compared to how many people in total make what on average. It really evens itself out. These statistics don't surprise me at all with what it is possible to make and what people on average are getting. I do however think people need to see these details, but not be told it's a ridiculous circumstance.
- surfacewound, on 10/10/2007, -11/+22Solution? Be one of the 0.25 percent.
- nicepants, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why is this a surprise? Those who make the most overall are the ones whose incomes increase the most overall. (This increase was measured in dollars, not percentage points)
That's like saying pizza hut sold 1 Million more pizzas this year, but local pizza shops only sold an average of 200 more per year. It's all in the scale. - Cayfox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The tax cuts are paid for out of the pockets of less fortunate people - much of the money being shoveled into the top .25%'s bank accounts is borrowed and will have to be paid back with interest. Guess which percentile will get to foot the bill...
- nicepants, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why is this a surprise? Those who make the most overall are the ones whose incomes increase the most overall. (This increase was measured in dollars, not percentage points)
- Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -24/+44Oh no!!! The rich people are rich? STOP THE PRESSES!
Yet another article promoting a redistribution of wealth- Nizza, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6Yet another moronic comment of yours for me to bury today.
- Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4and yet the comment below mine says basically the same thing and has positive diggs. How 'moronic'
- Coridan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You have it backwards Piedramente. The answer is not taking money from the rich, it's that the rich stop taking so much money from the poor. Also, being rich does not make you smart. Filthy rich people are born so, to crooks and liars that make up the top .25 percent of the nation, and are taught to be miserly narcissistic overlords.
America maybe the richest nation on earth, but if only a hand full of people own most of it why even include them in the statistic? Would you say America was the smartest nation in the world if .25% of the population were absolute geniuses?
- laserdog, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3"Yet another article promoting a redistribution of wealth"
Because clearly if we upped our taxation of the rich by a percent we'd sudde
- Nizza, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6Yet another moronic comment of yours for me to bury today.
