The rich aren't paying enough tax.
-
For some reason, Liberals seem to think that there is a set amount of wealth. They feel like its up to the government, and good folks like them to "distribute" the wealth so that everyone gets their "fair share". If you ever talk to Obama or any of the other Liberals who make substantially more income than the people they claim they want to help, ask them how much of their pay check will be distributed to those in need. What these folks don't realize is that life is not a big piece of pie. Life is a kitchen where you can make as many pies as you want.
Conservatives understand this simple fact: The government can't make poor people wealthy. It can make wealthy people poor, though. You don't make a nation wealthy by taking from the producers and giving to the non-producers. If you were to sit down and study any of the communist nations, you would learn very quickly that when the government controls everything, life is pretty bad for those people.
Do I believe our country is going to turn into a communist nation? No way. There are enough people out there who understand what I'm talking about to make sure it doesn't.
-
But, it will continue to be used as a class struggle voter manipulative tool.
Leftists just have to hope a lot of Americans don't take the time to
find out the truth about stuff like this for themselves.
-
Boortz' numbers are pretty misleading. The tax burden on the richest is as low as it's been in many, many years. Highest marginal tax rates, a sampling -- per Wikipedia:
1932-'33 63%
1941 81%
1944-'45 94%
1954-'63 91% (supposedly the great prosperous era everyone wants to return to)
1964 77% (AFTER the Kennedy tax cuts)
1982 50%
1987 33%
1993-'00 39.6%
Currently 35%
The reason the rich are paying more as a total is that the very rich are even richer than before. Income inequality is throwing everything off.
The reason the rich are paying more as a total is that the very rich are even richer than before. Income inequality is throwing everything off.
Huh?
-
The top 1% control most of the money in the US, so it only makes sense they would be paying a large portion of income taxes.
Is it really that surprising?
-
The top 1% control most of the money in the US, so it only makes sense they would be paying a large portion of income taxes.
Is it really that surprising?
The top 1% control most of the money in the US, so it only makes sense they would be paying a large portion of income taxes.
Is it really that surprising?
They already do.
And the bulk of the investing.
So?
WSS
-
The top 1% control most of the money in the US, so it only makes sense they would be paying a large portion of income taxes.
Is it really that surprising?
They already do.
And the bulk of the investing.
So?
WSS
They already do.
And the bulk of the investing.
So?
WSS
So how does it not make sense that they would pay a lot of taxes?
I'm not understanding the anger that people who control most of the money also pay a lot of taxes.
It only makes sense.
-
They already do.
And the bulk of the investing.
So?
WSS
So how does it not make sense that they would pay a lot of taxes?
I'm not understanding the anger that people who control most of the money also pay a lot of taxes.
It only makes sense.
So how does it not make sense that they would pay a lot of taxes?
I'm not understanding the anger that people who control most of the money also pay a lot of taxes.
It only makes sense.
Again they do.
WSS
-
Lets really put this into perspective and not try to expand the argument into class vs class.
IF you are "wealthy" (the numerical determining factor depending upon IRS tax rates or social definitions are not the same) for the sake of argument here 500k+/year of REPORTED AGI.
If you "report" that as claimed income their is an awful lot of expensed income and tax deferred investment vehicles that they do use via financial professionals. That income class of people are not worried about paying utilities or health care. They also are not worried about their houses being over run by lower level income mobs.
They have more than likely attained those levels of income because of skill sets and money management skills or professionals.
In all likelihood people who do attain levels of REPORTED income are not going to stop investing and expanding their wealth no matter the income tax levels or capital gains they are hit with. In fact they are strategizing with other financial professionals on other vehicles to move and invest the money with.
Taxing the top 1% is not going to stop their investment strategies, they will just adjust and find other loopholes or take in account the cost to invest and pass on the costs or plan for them in business acquisitions or expansions.
Whats funny is the conservative right has in effect using fear pr tactics mobilized a significant percentage of their voting bloc who are not even affected by these possible raises by political talking points.
the government is invading and taking over.... The government by taxing the top 1%(trickle down economic theory has obviously been proven to be quite useless) will cause growth contraction... BS the socialism monster.... blah blah blah. On one hand you have massive bonuses and ceo salaries and the public hating it and on the other you have the same party talking about how taxing those same people is bad..... sure that makes sense. So you dont want topend wealth concentration and dont want the government to mandate private pay options but you want to say those bonuses are not examples of how trickle down economics does not work anyways.... the more money people have at the top the more they pay themselves, they are at the top because they use their money to make money because they have money in the first place.... they are not going to stop because of potential taxes.
-
Lets really put this into perspective and not try to expand the argument into class vs class.
IF you are "wealthy" (the numerical determining factor depending upon IRS tax rates or social definitions are not the same) for the sake of argument here 500k+/year of REPORTED AGI.
If you "report" that as claimed income their is an awful lot of expensed income and tax deferred investment vehicles that they do use via financial professionals. That income class of people are not worried about paying utilities or health care. They also are not worried about their houses being over run by lower level income mobs.
They have more than likely attained those levels of income because of skill sets and money management skills or professionals.
In all likelihood people who do attain levels of REPORTED income are not going to stop investing and expanding their wealth no matter the income tax levels or capital gains they are hit with. In fact they are strategizing with other financial professionals on other vehicles to move and invest the money with.
Taxing the top 1% is not going to stop their investment strategies, they will just adjust and find other loopholes or take in account the cost to invest and pass on the costs or plan for them in business acquisitions or expansions.
Whats funny is the conservative right has in effect using fear pr tactics mobilized a significant percentage of their voting bloc who are not even affected by these possible raises by political talking points.
the government is invading and taking over.... The government by taxing the top 1%(trickle down economic theory has obviously been proven to be quite useless) will cause growth contraction... BS the socialism monster.... blah blah blah. On one hand you have massive bonuses and ceo salaries and the public hating it and on the other you have the same party talking about how taxing those same people is bad..... sure that makes sense. So you dont want topend wealth concentration and dont want the government to mandate private pay options but you want to say those bonuses are not examples of how trickle down economics does not work anyways.... the more money people have at the top the more they pay themselves, they are at the top because they use their money to make money because they have money in the first place.... they are not going to stop because of potential taxes.
Lets really put this into perspective and not try to expand the argument into class vs class.
1% of our population pays over 40% of federal income tax revenues.
All these discussion about 'hidden income', adi, financial professionals is nice and dandy.
Let's do some grammar school arithmatic: 1% contributes 40%. Does this constitute a 'fair share'.
-
Lets really put this into perspective and not try to expand the argument into class vs class.
1% of our population pays over 40% of federal income tax revenues.
All these discussion about 'hidden income', adi, financial professionals is nice and dandy.
Let's do some grammar school arithmatic: 1% contributes 40%. Does this constitute a 'fair share'.
1% of our population pays over 40% of federal income tax revenues.
All these discussion about 'hidden income', adi, financial professionals is nice and dandy.
Let's do some grammar school arithmatic: 1% contributes 40%. Does this constitute a 'fair share'.
Really grammar school arithmatic.... interesting because our tax and financial system is anything but that but since you brought it up....
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2007).
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
So the top 1% WHO OWN 34.3% OF ALL PRIVATELY HELD WEALTH CONTRIBUTIN 40% is pretty comensurate to what they own in terms of total wealth.....
15% of the total U.S. wealth for the bottom 80% of the entire working population...... Yes I dont have a problem with the top end paying a fair share for fair benefits they do recieve.
thats pretty grammar school arithmatic in my book..... Like I said this right wing PR bs attack about the left and its nefarious taxing stops investments on the top scales is ridiculous just like your grammar school mathematics. When that small population gain massively they also have to pay massively.... you know top end market dynamics that a few consolidated movers can change a given market by just sneezing? IT DOES EXIST.
How about lets bring up trickle down economics again or laissez faire business deregulation I hear that worked well also in theory.... or that almost depression and financial system debacle must not have happened. Sure those at the top need the million dollar bonuses when their salaries already exceed millions.... of course it must be wrong to tax those who control 85% of all the income concentration in the u.s.
sure
-
1% of our population pays over 40% of federal income tax revenues.
All these discussion about 'hidden income', adi, financial professionals is nice and dandy.
Let's do some grammar school arithmatic: 1% contributes 40%. Does this constitute a 'fair share'.
Really grammar school arithmatic.... interesting because our tax and financial system is anything but that but since you brought it up....
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2007).
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
So the top 1% WHO OWN 34.3% OF ALL PRIVATELY HELD WEALTH CONTRIBUTIN 40% is pretty comensurate to what they own in terms of total wealth.....
15% of the total U.S. wealth for the bottom 80% of the entire working population...... Yes I dont have a problem with the top end paying a fair share for fair benefits they do recieve.
thats pretty grammar school arithmatic in my book..... Like I said this right wing PR bs attack about the left and its nefarious taxing stops investments on the top scales is ridiculous just like your grammar school mathematics. When that small population gain massively they also have to pay massively.... you know top end market dynamics that a few consolidated movers can change a given market by just sneezing? IT DOES EXIST.
How about lets bring up trickle down economics again or laissez faire business deregulation I hear that worked well also in theory.... or that almost depression and financial system debacle must not have happened. Sure those at the top need the million dollar bonuses when their salaries already exceed millions.... of course it must be wrong to tax those who control 85% of all the income concentration in the u.s.
sure
How about lets bring up trickle down economics again or laissez faire business deregulation I hear that worked well also in theory.... or that almost depression and financial system debacle must not have happened.
And we're still alive.
Amazing. If only we could be always in the shitter like the Russians!!
sure
Heh. Sure.
WSS
-
Lets really put this into perspective and not try to expand the argument into class vs class.
1% of our population pays over 40% of federal income tax revenues.
All these discussion about 'hidden income', adi, financial professionals is nice and dandy.
Let's do some grammar school arithmatic: 1% contributes 40%. Does this constitute a 'fair share'.
1% of our population pays over 40% of federal income tax revenues.
All these discussion about 'hidden income', adi, financial professionals is nice and dandy.
Let's do some grammar school arithmatic: 1% contributes 40%. Does this constitute a 'fair share'.
Um... yes, especially when they hold MORE than 40% of the wealth in the US.
-
1% of our population pays over 40% of federal income tax revenues.
All these discussion about 'hidden income', adi, financial professionals is nice and dandy.
Let's do some grammar school arithmatic: 1% contributes 40%. Does this constitute a 'fair share'.
Um... yes, especially when they hold MORE than 40% of the wealth in the US.
Um... yes, especially when they hold MORE than 40% of the wealth in the US.
So, PE, would it be better to just take it all?
Divide it equally amongall American citizens?
Why or why not?
WSS
-
>>So, PE, would it be better to just take it all?
>>Divide it equally amongall American citizens?
>>Why or why not?
>>WSS
You're creating a false choice here -- either "total redistribution" or "freedom." Give me a break. In fact, let me turn the question around: Would you have no taxes of any kind? Or a flat dollar tax that results in $1000 in taxes on incomes of $10,000... $100,000... and $10,000,000?
If not, then we already agree on the core concept of some sort of progressive taxation. We're just haggling about the details.
These are moral issues to me. Ironic that in a so-called Christian nation, we don't heed Matt 25's call to lift up "the least of these."
-
But we can't afford to pay for all this.
The information I've repeatedly seen, is that
20 million folks will STILL NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE under
Obamahedoesn'tcare.
How is that solving the problem? And MILLIONS of those Americans would be those
who HAVE FINE HEALTH CARE NOW.
So, it is not going to be a utopian solution to current problems...
but total government control of the entire new system, and over millions and millions and millions and... millions
of Americans.
-
>>So, PE, would it be better to just take it all?
>>Divide it equally amongall American citizens?
>>Why or why not?
>>WSS
You're creating a false choice here -- either "total redistribution" or "freedom." Give me a break. In fact, let me turn the question around: Would you have no taxes of any kind? Or a flat dollar tax that results in $1000 in taxes on incomes of $10,000... $100,000... and $10,000,000?
If not, then we already agree on the core concept of some sort of progressive taxation. We're just haggling about the details.
These are moral issues to me. Ironic that in a so-called Christian nation, we don't heed Matt 25's call to lift up "the least of these."
>>So, PE, would it be better to just take it all?
>>Divide it equally amongall American citizens?
>>Why or why not?
>>WSS
You're creating a false choice here -- either "total redistribution" or "freedom." Give me a break. In fact, let me turn the question around: Would you have no taxes of any kind? Or a flat dollar tax that results in $1000 in taxes on incomes of $10,000... $100,000... and $10,000,000?
If not, then we already agree on the core concept of some sort of progressive taxation. We're just haggling about the details.
These are moral issues to me. Ironic that in a so-called Christian nation, we don't heed Matt 25's call to lift up "the least of these."
Correct enough.
So I guess it's up to us to decide just how much is a proper amount to be confiscated and will that be better used by the investments of the owners or politicians.
Should that 1% pay 50% of the US bills? 60? 70? They'd still be richer than you or me right?
But I agree it's a false choice though I do think unbridled capitalism will eventuually work a lot better than completely egalitarian sharing of the wealth.
As for the Christian thing, well that's one reason I'm unable to get on that Bus completely.
I'l let the board theologians figure out what "helping" or "supporting" the poor means.
And how much they are aslked to do in return.
WSS
-
>>So, PE, would it be better to just take it all?
>>Divide it equally amongall American citizens?
>>Why or why not?
>>WSS
You're creating a false choice here -- either "total redistribution" or "freedom." Give me a break. In fact, let me turn the question around: Would you have no taxes of any kind? Or a flat dollar tax that results in $1000 in taxes on incomes of $10,000... $100,000... and $10,000,000?
If not, then we already agree on the core concept of some sort of progressive taxation. We're just haggling about the details.
These are moral issues to me. Ironic that in a so-called Christian nation, we don't heed Matt 25's call to lift up "the least of these."
Correct enough.
So I guess it's up to us to decide just how much is a proper amount to be confiscated and will that be better used by the investments of the owners or politicians.
Should that 1% pay 50% of the US bills? 60? 70? They'd still be richer than you or me right?
But I agree it's a false choice though I do think unbridled capitalism will eventuually work a lot better than completely egalitarian sharing of the wealth.
As for the Christian thing, well that's one reason I'm unable to get on that Bus completely.
I'l let the board theologians figure out what "helping" or "supporting" the poor means.
And how much they are aslked to do in return.
WSS
As for the Christian thing, well that's one reason I'm unable to get on that Bus completely. I'l let the board theologians figure out what "helping" or "supporting" the poor means. And how much they are aslked to do in return.WSS
One example:
(1 Timothy 5:8) “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
-
As for the Christian thing, well that's one reason I'm unable to get on that Bus completely. I'l let the board theologians figure out what "helping" or "supporting" the poor means. And how much they are aslked to do in return.WSS
One example:
(1 Timothy 5:8) “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
One example:
(1 Timothy 5:8) “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
Excellent qualifier brother John.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login