Top 1% of Taxpayers Pay Almost 40% of All Taxes

[red states rule]

Just n time for the election, new US Treasury figures show how Americans are over taxed, and how a small minority of taxpayers are paying a huge majority of the taxes

After the Bush tax cuts, the "rich" are paying MORE is taxes then they were before the tax cut

But the libs and the messiah want them to pay more


Top 1% of Taxpayers Pay Almost 40% of All Taxes

1. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% of tax filers increased to 39.38% in 2005 (most recent year available), while the tax share of the top 5% climbed to 59.67%. The income tax share of the top half rose to 96.93%, according to recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data. The tax shares are the highest on record for these groups in comparable IRS data going back to 1986.

2. The share of adjusted gross income generated by the top 1% increased to 21.20% in 2005, relative to a level of 20.81% reached during the height of the stock market bubble in 2000 (when the income tax share of the top 1% was 37.42%). Although the income share of the top 1% is similar in 2000 and 2005, the income tax share was about two percentage points higher in 2005.

3. Between 1992 and 2000, the top one percent’s share of income jumped from 14.23% to 20.81%, an increase of nearly 7 percentage points, before slipping in 2001 and 2002. These data show that the most significant increases in this income share occurred in the 1990s, not in more recent years.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/01/blog-post_26.html

[midcan5]

More proof America is becoming a third world nation due to republican voodoo economics. A hard question: Is it moral (not legal) to make that much money?


"Piketty and Saez’s top bracket comprises 0.01 percent of U.S. taxpayers. There are 14,400 of them, earning an average of $12,775,000, with total earnings of $184 billion. The minimum annual income in this group is more than $5 million, so it seems reasonable to suppose that they could, without much hardship, give away a third of their annual income, an average of $4.3 million each, for a total of around $61 billion. That would still leave each of them with an annual income of at least $3.3 million.

Next comes the rest of the top 0.1 percent (excluding the category just described, as I shall do henceforth). There are 129,600 in this group, with an average income of just over $2 million and a minimum income of $1.1 million. If they were each to give a quarter of their income, that would yield about $65 billion, and leave each of them with at least $846,000 annually."

What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You? Peter Singer

"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life."

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20061217.htm

[red states rule]

More proof America is becoming a third world nation due to republican voodoo economics. A hard question: Is it moral (not legal) to make that much money?


"Piketty and Saez’s top bracket comprises 0.01 percent of U.S. taxpayers. There are 14,400 of them, earning an average of $12,775,000, with total earnings of $184 billion. The minimum annual income in this group is more than $5 million, so it seems reasonable to suppose that they could, without much hardship, give away a third of their annual income, an average of $4.3 million each, for a total of around $61 billion. That would still leave each of them with an annual income of at least $3.3 million.

Next comes the rest of the top 0.1 percent (excluding the category just described, as I shall do henceforth). There are 129,600 in this group, with an average income of just over $2 million and a minimum income of $1.1 million. If they were each to give a quarter of their income, that would yield about $65 billion, and leave each of them with at least $846,000 annually."

What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You? Peter Singer

"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life."

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20061217.htm

Yes it is moral, and it is what is best for not only America but the world

If you libs were serious about ending poverty, you would encourage more economic growth by lowering taxes, reduce government regulation, and let capitalism work

Why not comment on the fact so few people are paying a majority of the taxes collected - and try to justify why they should pay more

[Little-Acorn]

Is it moral (not legal) to make that much money?

The people paying them that money, did so entirely by choice, and even made contracts agreeing to it in advance.

Is it moral to renege on the payments?

(No question but that it's flatly illegal.)

And, is it DESTRUCTIVE TO SOCIETY to renege?

Finally, is it destructive to society (that's actually an excellent measure of morality) for government to step in and restrict or forbid people from paying employees that much money?

I submit that it is highly destructive, and thereby highly immoral. Societies that forbid such (which includes all socialistic societies), invariably fare MUCH worse than societites that do not.

[red states rule]

The people paying them that money, did so entirely by choice, and even made contracts agreeing to it in advance.

Is it moral to renege on the payments?

(No question but that it's flatly illegal.)

And, is it DESTRUCTIVE TO SOCIETY to renege?

Finally, is it destructive to society (that's actually an excellent measure of morality) for government to step in and restrict or forbid people from paying employees that much money?

I submit that it is highly destructive, and thereby highly immoral. Societies that forbid such (which includes all socialistic societies), invariably fare MUCH worse than societites that do not.

Libs are constantly whining about their rights being taken away (even though they can't tell us what they are) but they are always willing to impose their beliefs on us and the free market

[glockmail]

More proof America is becoming a third world nation due to republican voodoo economics. A hard question: Is it moral (not legal) to make that much money? …..
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20061217.htm

Instead of filtering your view of morality through a liberal utilitarian perhaps you should go to the actual source of morality:



Matthew 25:14-30 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

The Parable of the Talents
14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents[a] of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.
19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

21"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

22"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

23"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

[red states rule]

"Ten Men go out for Dinner… Who Pays what?"…

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all comes to $100.If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing like they do now with the present income tax structure.

The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59 of the bill.
So that is what the ten men decide to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you all are such good customers I am going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20”. Dinner for the 10 men now costs just $80...

The group still wanted to pay the bill the same way that they paid their taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men -- the Paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everybody would get his “Fair Share”?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal…So, the restaurant owner suggested it would be fair to reduce each mans bill roughly the same amount; and proceeded to work out the amounts each man would pay.

The fifth, like the first four now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
The seventh man now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
The eight man now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
The ninth man now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
The tenth man now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings)

Each of the six was better off then before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings…

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man “but he got $10”…“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. Its unfair that he got ten times more than me!?”“That’s true”, shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploit’s the poor!”The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up…

The next night the Tenth man did not show up for dinner, so the Nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half the bill!


http://rightsideva.blogspot.com/2008/02/ten-men-go-out-for-dinner-who-pays-what.html

[midcan5]

I disagree that is moral to have that much of the capital of the world. The consequences are immoral as their profit is made on the backs of the working poor here and throughout the world.

[red states rule]

I disagree that is moral to have that much of the capital of the world. The consequences are immoral as their profit is made on the backs of the working poor here and throughout the world.

So who will the poor work for? The poor do not create jobs. The poor do not start up companies. The poor do do invest

Have you ever got a job from a poor person?

It is not immoral how much someone makes. What is immoral is the amount of money government takes away from them in taxes

[Little-Acorn]

Saw a political cartoon once, wish I had saved it.

It showed two men walking up a hill. One of them is labelled "Upper 50% of Earners". He is carrying a fat Uncle Sam on his back, labelled "US Tax Burden". Sweat is pouring off the carrier's brow.

The other walker is labelled "Lower 50%", and has Uncle Sam's coattails in his hands, weighing maybe a few ounces.

The man with Uncle Sam on his back is saying, "Whew, let's take a break."

The other says, "No way! That would benefit you more than me!"


An excellent image, nails the reality perfectly.

[red states rule]

Dems and the liberal media go out of their way to whine how much a CEO makes - and what he/she saves due to the tax cut

But they never talk about how much in taxes he/she paid, and how many emplyess work for the company so they can take care of their families

Or how much Oil companies made in profits last year, but not how much in taxes they paid

Libs for some reason, want to punish achievement

[Yurt]

moral? that some should have more than others? that is life in an imperfect world and perfect world. and what really is "more?" should we all look alike, be robots? given the same intellect? the poor will always be with us. should one person work harder so that others who do not have the same as him or her?

as has been asked, without ever being truthfully answered:

would you support giving everyone A's on their report card? it's simply not fair that one or two people at the top receive A's, thus have a better shot at doing "well" in life.


midcan, i need approximately, oh say, $5,000 for an ad. would you give me $5,000? how about $1,000?

[red states rule]

moral? that some should have more than others? that is life in an imperfect world and perfect world. and what really is "more?" should we all look alike, be robots? given the same intellect? the poor will always be with us. should one person work harder so that others who do not have the same as him or her?

as has been asked, without ever being truthfully answered:

would you support giving everyone A's on their report card? it's simply not fair that one or two people at the top receive A's, thus have a better shot at doing "well" in life.


midcan, i need approximately, oh say, $5,000 for an ad. would you give me $5,000? how about $1,000?

Libs never give their own money - they will have the government tax the hell out of someone else - then you can have the money

The poor will always be with us Yurt as long as there are liberals who will pay them to stay poor via wealth transfers. they have no incentive not to be poor

[5stringJeff]

A hard question: Is it moral (not legal) to make that much money?

It's not a hard question. As long as you earn your money without acting unethically, of course it's moral to make that much. Here's the flip side of your question: is it moral for the government to confiscate 39% of your earnings if you make that much? The answer: NO.

[theHawk]

It's not a hard question. As long as you earn your money without acting unethically, of course it's moral to make that much. Here's the flip side of your question: is it moral for the government to confiscate 39% of your earnings if you make that much? The answer: NO.


Bingo.

How do liberals figure that taxing the rich somehow helps "the poor"? How does government holding onto more money help the economy? The more taxes it collects the less money is flowing through the economy.

[OCA]

Just n time for the election, new US Treasury figures show how Americans are over taxed, and how a small minority of taxpayers are paying a huge majority of the taxes

After the Bush tax cuts, the "rich" are paying MORE is taxes then they were before the tax cut

But the libs and the messiah want them to pay more


Top 1% of Taxpayers Pay Almost 40% of All Taxes

1. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% of tax filers increased to 39.38% in 2005 (most recent year available), while the tax share of the top 5% climbed to 59.67%. The income tax share of the top half rose to 96.93%, according to recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data. The tax shares are the highest on record for these groups in comparable IRS data going back to 1986.

2. The share of adjusted gross income generated by the top 1% increased to 21.20% in 2005, relative to a level of 20.81% reached during the height of the stock market bubble in 2000 (when the income tax share of the top 1% was 37.42%). Although the income share of the top 1% is similar in 2000 and 2005, the income tax share was about two percentage points higher in 2005.

3. Between 1992 and 2000, the top one percent’s share of income jumped from 14.23% to 20.81%, an increase of nearly 7 percentage points, before slipping in 2001 and 2002. These data show that the most significant increases in this income share occurred in the 1990s, not in more recent years.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/01/blog-post_26.html

The better question is: will either of the two major party candidates bring REAL tax relief to the average American? Answer=no.

[glockmail]

I disagree that is moral to have that much of the capital of the world. The consequences are immoral as their profit is made on the backs of the working poor here and throughout the world. You exhibit two misunderstandings of moden economics:
1. There is no shortage of "capital".
2. Without jobs the "working poor" would be non-working, starving poor. They want the jobs that the "evil capitalists" provide.

[gabosaurus]

That is the way it should be. It is also the way it is in most prosperous Western nations. If you make more money, you pay more taxes.
Do you expect the lower and middle classes to pay the majority of taxes? The ones who have much less to make due with?
My husband and I have a lot of deductions. We still paid close to the five-figure range to the government. That is the way this country runs.

After all, we have to support people like RSR, who earn zero but still freeload off our resources.

[midcan5]

So who will the poor work for? The poor do not create jobs. The poor do not start up companies. The poor do do invest

Have you ever got a job from a poor person?

It is not immoral how much someone makes. What is immoral is the amount of money government takes away from them in taxes

The trouble is neither do the rich, not counting the financial people taking care of the many loopholes that protects big money. A large joke of this entire conversation is the rich hide and protect their money very well and in case you haven't noticed by now trickle down is just a slogan.

We all have jobs because of poor people and lots of other people, who is it you think buys the products that support society? Everyone and in some ways the poor support the society more than the rich as their lots more of them.

It is immoral and while I haven't worked up an argument yet consider that we are all born to this earth and should by that life have a part of the earth. The rich deserve no more than the poor. And please don't tell me they earned it, most are born into it.

[Silver]

More proof America is becoming a third world nation due to republican voodoo economics. A hard question: Is it moral (not legal) to make that much money?


"Piketty and Saez’s top bracket comprises 0.01 percent of U.S. taxpayers. There are 14,400 of them, earning an average of $12,775,000, with total earnings of $184 billion. The minimum annual income in this group is more than $5 million


Whine, whine, whine....you don't like how much basketball players get? Football players?...Tiger Woods make to much to suit you? ...
you're a clown, .... a communist clown...

Why don't you give away a fuckin' kidney tomorrow? You don't need two....you'll get along just fine with one...........fool



, so it seems reasonable to suppose that they could, without much hardship, give away a third of their annual income, an average of $4.3 million each, for a total of around $61 billion. That would still leave each of them with an annual income of at least $3.3 million.

Next comes the rest of the top 0.1 percent (excluding the category just described, as I shall do henceforth). There are 129,600 in this group, with an average income of just over $2 million and a minimum income of $1.1 million. If they were each to give a quarter of their income, that would yield about $65 billion, and leave each of them with at least $846,000 annually."

What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You? Peter Singer

"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life."

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20061217.htm

x

[Yurt]

moral? that some should have more than others? that is life in an imperfect world and perfect world. and what really is "more?" should we all look alike, be robots? given the same intellect? the poor will always be with us. should one person work harder so that others who do not have the same as him or her?

as has been asked, without ever being truthfully answered:

would you support giving everyone A's on their report card? it's simply not fair that one or two people at the top receive A's, thus have a better shot at doing "well" in life.


midcan, i need approximately, oh say, $5,000 for an ad. would you give me $5,000? how about $1,000?

midcan, why are you ignoring this?

[red states rule]

The better question is: will either of the two major party candidates bring REAL tax relief to the average American? Answer=no.

At least McCain wants to keep the tax cuts - and add to them

Obama will give us a top rate of about 60% when you add the increase he wants in the top rate, taking the cap off SS, 2% Medicade tax, and the average for state and local taxes (about 5% to 6%)

Then you have Obama's desire to increase the capital gains tax, the dividend tax, and corporate income tax

[JackDaniels]

I disagree that is moral to have that much of the capital of the world. The consequences are immoral as their profit is made on the backs of the working poor here and throughout the world.

Wealth is not finite. Therefore, your point is invalid.

[red states rule]

Wealth is not finite. Therefore, you're point is invalid.

Libs see taxpayers as a renewable money source

[OCA]

At least McCain wants to keep the tax cuts - and add to them

Obama will give us a top rate of about 60% when you add the increase he wants in the top rate, taking the cap off SS, 2% Medicade tax, and the average for state and local taxes (about 5% to 6%)

Then you have Obama's desire to increase the capital gains tax, the dividend tax, and corporate income tax

Why is it that you insist on believing in campaign promises? Can you name 1 post Reagan that was kept? McCain is a liberal, he will jump in and raise taxes like you wouldn't believe.

BTW I got a measely 350 or so from the Bush tax cuts, gee think i'll throw a party.

[Yurt]

the dems sure love to take from paul in order to pay peter


Tax proposals by the numbers
Democrats have proposed nearly $10 billion in new taxes and other changes to help erase the state's $17.2 billion deficit for the fiscal year that began July 1:

$5.6 billion Raise tax rates for wealthy Californians

$1.1 billion Suspend deduction for corporate losses

$815 million Suspend tax adjustments

$470 million Increase corporate taxes

$215 million Reduce dependent credit

$1.5 billion Waive penalties for late tax payments

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/10/BAFN11MBPU.DTL

[OCA]

the dems sure love to take from paul in order to pay peter



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/10/BAFN11MBPU.DTL

They all do Yurt, Dem and Repub alike, there is scant little difference between the two.

[Yurt]

They all do Yurt, Dem and Repub alike, there is scant little difference between the two.

true, but the dems take more in way of taxes. the repubs have definitely lost sight of the major party platform when it comes to taxes and spending.

[manu1959]

what is immoral about the fact that i am better at making money than you.....

what is moral and ethical about taxing my ability at a greater rate than your ability.....


More proof America is becoming a third world nation due to republican voodoo economics. A hard question: Is it moral (not legal) to make that much money?


"Piketty and Saez’s top bracket comprises 0.01 percent of U.S. taxpayers. There are 14,400 of them, earning an average of $12,775,000, with total earnings of $184 billion. The minimum annual income in this group is more than $5 million, so it seems reasonable to suppose that they could, without much hardship, give away a third of their annual income, an average of $4.3 million each, for a total of around $61 billion. That would still leave each of them with an annual income of at least $3.3 million.

Next comes the rest of the top 0.1 percent (excluding the category just described, as I shall do henceforth). There are 129,600 in this group, with an average income of just over $2 million and a minimum income of $1.1 million. If they were each to give a quarter of their income, that would yield about $65 billion, and leave each of them with at least $846,000 annually."

What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You? Peter Singer

"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life."

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20061217.htm

[MtnBiker]

The rich deserve no more than the poor. And please don't tell me they earned it, most are born into it.

conjecture

[red states rule]

true, but the dems take more in way of taxes. the repubs have definitely lost sight of the major party platform when it comes to taxes and spending.

Look at what liberal tax and spend liberals did to the state of MI

[actsnoblemartin]

liberals dont go by facts, they go by feelings :laugh2:


Just n time for the election, new US Treasury figures show how Americans are over taxed, and how a small minority of taxpayers are paying a huge majority of the taxes

After the Bush tax cuts, the "rich" are paying MORE is taxes then they were before the tax cut

But the libs and the messiah want them to pay more


Top 1% of Taxpayers Pay Almost 40% of All Taxes

1. The share of total federal income taxes paid by the top 1% of tax filers increased to 39.38% in 2005 (most recent year available), while the tax share of the top 5% climbed to 59.67%. The income tax share of the top half rose to 96.93%, according to recent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data. The tax shares are the highest on record for these groups in comparable IRS data going back to 1986.

2. The share of adjusted gross income generated by the top 1% increased to 21.20% in 2005, relative to a level of 20.81% reached during the height of the stock market bubble in 2000 (when the income tax share of the top 1% was 37.42%). Although the income share of the top 1% is similar in 2000 and 2005, the income tax share was about two percentage points higher in 2005.

3. Between 1992 and 2000, the top one percent’s share of income jumped from 14.23% to 20.81%, an increase of nearly 7 percentage points, before slipping in 2001 and 2002. These data show that the most significant increases in this income share occurred in the 1990s, not in more recent years.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/01/blog-post_26.html

[gabosaurus]

Martin, what would you know about paying taxes? Go ask your mother.

[glockmail]

Martin, what would you know about paying taxes? Go ask your mother.
Gabs, go ask your hubby. :slap:

[red states rule]

Gabs, go ask your hubby. :slap:

Gabs probably works to pay all the taxes for the family. That is the sad truth when both the husband and wife works outside the home

[Yurt]

moral? that some should have more than others? that is life in an imperfect world and perfect world. and what really is "more?" should we all look alike, be robots? given the same intellect? the poor will always be with us. should one person work harder so that others who do not have the same as him or her?

as has been asked, without ever being truthfully answered:

would you support giving everyone A's on their report card? it's simply not fair that one or two people at the top receive A's, thus have a better shot at doing "well" in life.


midcan, i need approximately, oh say, $5,000 for an ad. would you give me $5,000? how about $1,000?

3rd time midcan...is there a reason you can't answer this post? me thinks it would upset your sheltered world view

[midcan5]

3rd time midcan...is there a reason you can't answer this post? me thinks it would upset your sheltered world view

I will try to answer some of the misconceptions in this thread, but first I have to answer Yurt since he asked. Being the busy liberal I am, I cannot correct all the foolish notions that fly around the wingnut universe. If ever I don't reply to a thread question, send me a message.

There is a great divide between school grades and material possessions. Grades assume the children were given the same opportunity to pay attention and study. If they do poorly it is usually because they are not paying attention or studying. So grades are fair. I have heard of a Harvard professor who gives only A's and A- as he gets into too many arguments with his smart spoiled students. On the side he gives them their actual grade.

Now to the playing field called business or opportunity, that is different. If there were a level playing field as in grades, then yes, we could fault the worker. But that does not exist as our birthplace is the largest determinant of where we start in life and if we start at the bottom or top we generally remain there. I am old enough to have seen that in lots of people throughout life. No one wants equal nor robots, all we want is the recognition of the reality of social position and class and the workplace.

As far as working hard, poor people often work as hard a rich people, the difference again is where you start. Working hard in life is no guarantee of success. Probably being very smart is a better guarantee. If you were my fiend and needed a grand that would be no problem, but that is a relational thing, If I am in need and need a grand to live then hopefully someone will give me a hand up until I am ok.

Why do wingnuts believe rich people create jobs? Let me ask how exactly do they do that? Large corporations create jobs by their very nature but rich people are not interested in jobs only in their investments etc. It is the buyer, the person in need, who really create jobs by creating the opportunity for a business. Even large corporations with lots of money don't create jobs today, in the US that is, they create them where the labor market is cheap. Outsourcing is rampant in large companies. You work in a service, as many Americans do today. That is harder to outsource.

The small business owner, the entrepreneur helps create jobs by wanting a solid business and eventually the riches that come with it. This is a reason we should have UHC but that is another discussion. All the rich people I know, work for their family and for themselves, their consumption is greater as they own more and spend more but this is hardly creating jobs. Jobs come from a society in which everyone has a piece of it as happened after WWII. If anyone is interested in something other than the rhetoric of the corporate MSM check out Dean Baker's America since 1980.

http://www.amazon.com/United-States-since-World-Since/dp/0521677556/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216587705&sr=1-1

conservative nanny state

http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Nanny-State-Wealthy-Government/dp/1411693957/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216587705&sr=1-2


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/simon.html

[Yurt]

I will try to answer some of the misconceptions in this thread, but first I have to answer Yurt since he asked. Being the busy liberal I am, I cannot correct all the foolish notions that fly around the wingnut universe. If ever I don't reply to a thread question, send me a message.



:lol: that was good. i'll read it and get back to you. :)

[red states rule]

The top 1% earn about 19.4% of the money - and pay nearly 40% of all Federal income taxes

That is the bottom line

http://www.cbpp.org/3-29-07inc.htm

[retiredman]

The top 1% earn about 19.4% of the money - and pay nearly 40% of all Federal income taxes

That is the bottom line

http://www.cbpp.org/3-29-07inc.htm


as it should be

[red states rule]

as it should be

Why? Why punish achievement?

And why is the current level on insane taxation not enough for for Dems?

[retiredman]

Why? Why punish achievement?

And why is the current level on insane taxation not enough for for Dems?


were rich people suffering during the Clinton years?

and if you don't like the basic premise of a progressive tax code, you probably need to equally blame democrats and republicans alike, since 1913.

[red states rule]

were rich people suffering during the Clinton years?

and if you don't like the basic premise of a progressive tax code, you probably need to equally blame democrats and republicans alike, since 1913.

What libs can and won't admit is

1) The "rich" are paying MORE in taxes after the tax cut

2) Revenues to the government have gone up in the last 3 years because of increased economic activity thanks to the tax cuts

3) Revenues will decrease with these multiple tax cuts. When you want to tax any activity you want to provide incentives for that activity

By increasing tax rates, dividend tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax rate, and taking the cap off SS - you are talkling about a tax increase well over 2 trillion

By taking that money out of the pockects of investors, cousumers, and businesses it will kil off risk taking, business expansion, consumer spending, and increased employment

[theHawk]

Libs want to divide this country into two. The elite few who pay everyone else's way (paying their "fair share"), and the majority that doesn't pay and receives all the benefits. Income redistribution is their wet dream, and Obama will make it happen.

[retiredman]

What libs can and won't admit is

1) The "rich" are paying MORE in taxes after the tax cut

2) Revenues to the government have gone up in the last 3 years because of increased economic activity thanks to the tax cuts

3) Revenues will decrease with these multiple tax cuts. When you want to tax any activity you want to provide incentives for that activity

4)By increasing tax rates, dividend tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax rate, and taking the cap off SS - you are talkling about a tax increase well over 2 trillion

5) By taking that money out of the pockects of investors, cousumers, and businesses it will kil off risk taking, business expansion, consumer spending, and increased employment

1. they ARE paying more, but not because of the decrease in their tax rate, however.
2. your opinion.
3. your opinion.
4. OK
5. your opinion

[red states rule]

Libs want to divide this country into two. The elite few who pay everyone else's way (paying their "fair share"), and the majority that doesn't pay and receives all the benefits. Income redistribution is their wet dream, and Obama will make it happen.

There is already a small minority "pulling wagon" while the majority rides in the wagon

Over $9 trillion in wealth have been redistributed, and all we hear from the left is it is still not enough

[red states rule]

1. they ARE paying more, but not because of the decrease in their tax rate, however.
2. your opinion.
3. your opinion.
4. OK
5. your opinion

As usual, you make no attempt to even try to counter the econmic facts - just dismiss them out of hand

The big lie from the left and the messiah is only those making over $200,000 will see a tax increase

Nearly every worker at nearly all income levels (and even retired folks) will see a tax increase

Dems do not want change - they want our dollars, and alot of them as well

[red states rule]

BTW MFM it is not opinion. The numbers have been run on the Dems tax paln and the numbers show a nightmare for the economy and the people


But what about the Bush tax cuts? They only favor the wealthy, right? Again, let’s go to the facts. Since 2000, when President Bush entered office, the share of federal tax liabilities borne by the lowest and middle quintiles has decreased, while the share borne by the highest quintile has increased. In 2000, the lowest quintile bore 1.1 percent of total federal tax liabilities compared with 0.9 percent in 2004, the year that all of the Bush tax cuts were in effect. Thus, the federal tax liability of the lowest quintile dropped 18 percent. However, the highest quintile paid 67.2 percent of these liabilities in 2004, an increase of 1 percent in their liability since 2000, when they paid 66.6 percent. Far from favoring the wealthy, these numbers suggest that the wealthy are bearing more of the tax burden

The Department of the Treasury recently released a paper studying the impact of letting tax relief expire: “A four-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $40,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $2,345; a four-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $80,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $2,000; a three-person, one-earner family with wage income each year of $40,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $1,655; and a head of household with two children and wage income each year of $30,000 in 2007 dollars would see a tax increase of $1,615.”

More than 116 million Americans would see their taxes go up. And small businesses that pay their taxes based on individual rates (which is most of them) could see their effective rate rise to more than 44 percent.

The last thing an uncertain U.S. economy needs is a large tax increase. For businesses, especially small and medium-sized ones, a tax increase during a soft economy could push many companies into bankruptcy. Don’t take our word for it. On May 1, Minority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) asked Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), on the House floor, for the rationale behind forgoing House pay-go rules for the stimulus package. In his response Rep. Hoyer said: “ … we felt, in terms of stimulating the economy, you didn't want to stimulate and depress at the same time.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11259.html

[retiredman]

As usual, you make no attempt to even try to counter the econmic facts - just dismiss them out of hand

The big lie from the left and the messiah is only those making over $200,000 will see a tax increase

Nearly every worker at nearly all income levels (and even retired folks) will see a tax increase

Dems do not want change - they want our dollars, and alot of them as well

I feel no need to counter your economic OPINIONS. Your predictions about what will happen in the wake of any tax increase are NOT facts, regardless of what you claim

[red states rule]

I feel no need to counter your economic OPINIONS. Your predictions about what will happen in the wake of any tax increase are NOT facts, regardless of what you claim

You are ignoring not only post # 48 - but the bold face lies of your messiah on who will pay more in taxes

[red states rule]

and here is the current numbers from the IRS

Now MFM, go ahead and dismiss the facts, call it another cut and paste, call it baseless opinion, and ramble on how the messiah only wants "fairness" for all taxpayers


snip

The nearby chart shows that the top 1% of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40% of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years. The top 10% in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71%. Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom, but that's also going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%. Perhaps he thinks half the country should pay all the taxes to support the other half.

Aha, we are told: The rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money. That is true. The top 1% earned 22% of all reported income. But they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income. In other words, the tax code is already steeply progressive.

We also know from income mobility data that a very large percentage in the top 1% are "new rich," not inheritors of fortunes. There is rapid turnover in the ranks of the highest income earners, so much so that people who started in the top 1% of income in the 1980s and 1990s suffered the largest declines in earnings of any income group over the subsequent decade, according to Treasury Department studies of actual tax returns. It's hard to stay king of the hill in America for long.

The most amazing part of this story is the leap in the number of Americans who declared adjusted gross income of more than $1 million from 2003 to 2006. The ranks of U.S. millionaires nearly doubled to 354,000 from 181,000 in a mere three years after the tax cuts.

This is precisely what supply-siders predicted would happen with lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and income. The economy and earnings would grow faster, which they did; investors would declare more capital gains and companies would pay out more dividends, which they did; the rich would invest less in tax shelters at lower tax rates, so their tax payments would rise, which did happen.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks

[retiredman]

You are ignoring not only post # 48 - but the bold face lies of your messiah on who will pay more in taxes

post #48? the predictions of the Bush administration's treasury department? more opinion.

Obama has stated that he will repeal the Bush temporary tax cuts which were primarily benefitting the wealthiest of Americans. I applaud that idea. I think that the rich were doing quite nicely with those tax rates during the Clinton years...and that is fact, not prediction.

[retiredman]

from your WSJ editorial link:

"Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do."

my guess is: when the Bush tax cuts are repealed, it may be "hard", but the rich will end up paying a little teeny weeny bit more than they already do!:lol:

[red states rule]

post #48? the predictions of the Bush administration's treasury department? more opinion.

Obama has stated that he will repeal the Bush temporary tax cuts which were primarily benefitting the wealthiest of Americans. I applaud that idea. I think that the rich were doing quite nicely with those tax rates during the Clinton years...and that is fact, not prediction.

No, the amount of ADDITIONAL TAXES people will pay

People who make LESS then $200,000/yr

The "rich" as you cal them are paying MORE in taxes today then they were before the tax cuts?

How much more do you want them to pay? 40% is not enough for you?

The "rich" are not the only ones - nearly everyone will pay more. This must be the "change" your messiah is talking about

[5stringJeff]

No one should pay more of their income, percentage wise, than others, just because they have a larger income. Any income tax should be at one rate (somewhere between 15-20%) across the board.

[red states rule]

from your WSJ editorial link:

"Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do."

my guess is: when the Bush tax cuts are repealed, it may be "hard", but the rich will end up paying a little teeny weeny bit more than they already do!:lol:

makes sense. They will stop investing, stop hiring, stop expsnding their business,a nd stop taking risk

Which will cost jobs for the people you libs claim to care about

Remember the luxury tax libs passed in the 80's? They were going to make the rich pay when they bought things like yachts

Well, the rich stopped buying yachts. Guess what, the workers who built the yahts lost their jobs. The towns where they were built were hit hard when the manufacturing plants closed

When the tax was repealed, the rich started to buy again. The jobs came back

Same principal applies here now and it did then

[retiredman]

No, the amount of ADDITIONAL TAXES people will pay

People who make LESS then $200,000/yr

The "rich" as you cal them are paying MORE in taxes today then they were before the tax cuts?

How much more do you want them to pay? 40% is not enough for you?

The "rich" are not the only ones - nearly everyone will pay more. This must be the "change" your messiah is talking about


the amount of additional taxes is a guesstimate in a paper written by Team Bush.

And how much more do I want the rich to pay? Just the teeny weeny bit more that will result from going back to Clinton era marginal tax rates....that's how much.

you ask that question all the time. Do you have short term memory problems?

[retiredman]

makes sense. They will stop investing, stop hiring, stop expsnding their business,a nd stop taking risk



stop investing? what do you think they will do with their money? put it in a vault in their basement where it will earn ZERO dollars?

of course they will continue to invest and take risk...it is how they became rich in the first place. My dad was filthy rich. He NEVER stopped investing and taking risks even during the 50's and 60's when the tax rates were MUCH higher than they are today.

[red states rule]

stop investing? what do you think they will do with their money? put it in a vault in their basement where it will earn ZERO dollars?

of course they will continue to invest and take risk...it is how they became rich in the first place. My dad was filthy rich. He NEVER stopped investing and taking risks even during the 50's and 60's when the tax rates were MUCH higher than they are today.

The rest of the post you ignored blows your post out of the water

Remember the luxury tax libs passed in the 80's? They were going to make the rich pay when they bought things like yachts

Well, the rich stopped buying yachts. Guess what, the workers who built the yahts lost their jobs. The towns where they were built were hit hard when the manufacturing plants closed

When the tax was repealed, the rich started to buy again. The jobs came back

Same principal applies here now and it did then

[red states rule]

the amount of additional taxes is a guesstimate in a paper written by Team Bush.

And how much more do I want the rich to pay? Just the teeny weeny bit more that will result from going back to Clinton era marginal tax rates....that's how much.

you ask that question all the time. Do you have short term memory problems?

It is not a guess, the IRS ran the numbers

Not only does your messiah want an increase in the tax rates, he will also hit us with an increase in SS taxes, dividend taxes, corporate income tax rate, and capital gains tax rate

So the "teeny weeny" increase is really a MASSIVE ncrease. I want you to keep tossing out the lie about how big the increase will be and who will pay it

[retiredman]

It is not a guess, the IRS ran the numbers

Not only does your messiah want an increase in the tax rates, he will also hit us with an increase in SS taxes, dividend taxes, corporate income tax rate, and capital gains tax rate

So the "teeny weeny" increase is really a MASSIVE ncrease. I want you to keep tossing out the lie about how big the increase will be and who will pay it

I don't toss out lies. I gave my opinion of your cut and paste opinions.

My guess is that most voters in America are really not that unhappy about wealthy folks paying a marginally larger amount of taxes. Why not ask them?

Once again, the economy is the top issue for voters, with 83% who say it is a very important issue in the upcoming election. This month, voters trust the Democratic Party by a 47% to 37% margin. The Democrats’ advantage in this category has decreased somewhat from last month, when the Party had a fourteen percentage point lead. Among voters not affiliated with either party, 45% trust the Democrats more on this issue, while 29% trust the GOP more.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

[red states rule]

I don't toss out lies. I gave my opinion of your cut and paste opinions.

My guess is that most voters in America are really not that unhappy about wealthy folks paying a marginally larger amount of taxes. Why not ask them?

You and the messiah are lying about who will pay more in taxes. It not just those who make over $200,000/yr

Even retired couples will pay more thru an increase on the dividend tax

It is a small majority who pays taxes - so they get the biggest benefit of a tax cut

It is like a store is having a 50% off sale. The guy ahead of you buys $500 worth of stuff and he gets a discount of $250

You buy $100 and get $50 off

Are you going to scream at the store manager the other guy got a bigger discount then you?

[retiredman]

You and the messiah are lying about who will pay more in taxes. It not just those who make over $200,000/yr

Even retired couples will pay more thru an increase on the dividend tax

It is a small majority who pays taxes - so they get the biggest benefit of a tax cut

It is like a store is having a 50% off sale. The guy ahead of you buys $500 worth of stuff and he gets a discount of $250

You buy $100 and get $50 off

Are you going to scream at the store manager the other guy got a bigger discount then you?

nope. and I am not going to scream when the guys making more that $200K pay a bit more in taxes than they do now!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

nope. and I am not going to scream when the guys making more that $200K pay a bit more in taxes than they do now!:laugh2:

No matter what the messiah says you nod in agreement

I hope you are still laughing when he have the replay of the Peanut Carter economy because that is what will happen

I see you ducked a prime example of what happened when the libs overtax them - they stopped investing in new yachts

[retiredman]

No matter what the messiah says you nod in agreement

I hope you are still laughing when he have the replay of the Peanut Carter economy because that is what will happen

I see you ducked a prime example of what happened when the libs overtax them - they stopped investing in new yachts

in order:

1. not true
2. I hope you are still whining when the economy booms under Obama.
3. lots of high end yacht makers on the coast of Maine....most shifted their business model and made lower end craft when the market for high end yachts got soft and their businesses continued without interruption. and I really am not all that sad that rich folks had to wait to upgrade their yachts!

[red states rule]

in order:

1. not true
2. I hope you are still whining when the economy booms under Obama.
3. lots of high end yacht makers on the coast of Maine....most shifted their business model and made lower end craft when the market for high end yachts got soft and their businesses continued without interruption. and I really am not all that sad that rich folks had to wait to upgrade their yachts!

As usual you do not have a clue. The yacht buyers stopped buying putting many people out of work. So much for your liberal compassion


snip

President Bush, in his budget proposals, asked Congress to repeal the 10 percent luxury tax on yachts priced at more than $100,000 (and also on private planes that cost more than $250,000). The repeal, which Congress is likely to approve, would be retroactive to Feb. 1.

Since the tax took effect in January 1990, hundreds of builders of large and small boats have spoken of it as a stake driven into the heart of an industry already suffering from the recession, tighter bank rules on financing and fallout from the gulf war.

In the last two years, about 100 builders of luxury boats -- recreational craft costing more than $100,000 -- cut their operations severely and laid off thousands of workers. Some builders filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code.

Now, sales personnel and owners of marine companies are hoping they will be swamped by buyers who have held off in the expectation that the tax will be repealed.

The 10 percent tax applies to the amount of the cost above $100,000, so that a boat selling for $300,000 carries a $20,000 luxury tax. That tax is in addition to any state and local taxes.

Mr. Bush's proposals were endorsed by Senator George J. Mitchell, Democrat of Maine and majority leader, whose state is active in boat building. That increases the chances that Congress will accept the argument that repealing the tax will create jobs and promote economic growth. Overall employment in the industry, including the makers of smaller, less-expensive boats, has dropped to 400,000, from 600,000 in 1988.

Adding to the industry's optimism are signs of a small revival in boat sales. Most companies said they sold more boats at the New York National Boat Show earlier last month than at last year's show, when sales were very weak. They said the boat show also had good attendance during its run at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in Manhattan.

Also, boat prices have dropped as much as 40 to 50 percent, interest rates have fallen and some lenders have begun to offer financing, though on very strict terms.

In 1991, sales of luxury boats dropped 70 percent from 1990's level, while overall boat sales fell 18 percent. Relies on Foreign Customers

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE7D9143AF934A35751C0A9649582 60

[retiredman]

again...I am not going to cry if rich guys have to pay more for yachts. period. boat builders can ALWAYS build saleable boats.

[red states rule]

again...I am not going to cry if rich guys have to pay more for yachts. period. boat builders can ALWAYS build saleable boats.

and as you ignore, as taxes are increased, the "rich" spend less, invest less, and its is the workers of the effected companies who lose their jobs

Tax revenues decrease, and unemployment goes up

Libs try to punish the rich, but end up punishing the people they claim to care so much about

[retiredman]

and as you ignore, as taxes are increased, the "rich" spend less, invest less


bullshit. the rich will never invest less. what do you expect them to do with their money? put it in a sock?

[Yurt]

what is interesting is that the bible seems to advocate a flat rate tax (10% tithe) no matter how much you have ;)

[red states rule]

bullshit. the rich will never invest less. what do you expect them to do with their money? put it in a sock?

Then what happened to the yacht industry? Why did libs finally repeal the tax?

After the tax was repealed, the yacht industry grew

Admit it, you have had your head handed to you on this one

[retiredman]

Then what happened to the yacht industry? Why did libs finally repeal the tax?

After the tax was repealed, the yacht industry grew

Admit it, you have had your head handed to you on this one


I do not think that the yacht tax is in any way indicative of what will happen if there is a marginal income tax rate increase for the wealthy. Again... for you to suggest that the rich will stop investing in our economy is patently ridiculous. What do you think that they will do? Pull all of their wealth out of interest bearing investment instruments and store it all in a vault?

Again.... I am the son of a man who was very wealthy throughout his adult life and he NEVER stopped investing and taking risks with his fortune regardless of the marginal tax rate.

admit that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[red states rule]

I do not think that the yacht tax is in any way indicative of what will happen if there is a marginal income tax rate increase for the wealthy. Again... for you to suggest that the rich will stop investing in our economy is patently ridiculous. What do you think that they will do? Pull all of their wealth out of interest bearing investment instruments and store it all in a vault?

Again.... I am the son of a man who was very wealthy throughout his adult life and he NEVER stopped investing and taking risks with his fortune regardless of the marginal tax rate.

admit that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Again, it is not ONLY the marginal rate hike - you are ignoring the captial gains tax increase, the corporate tax rate increase, lifting the cap off SS, the dividend tax hike, and now Dems want a gas tax increase

Here is the effects of those tax increases would have on NY state

According to the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, Mr. Obama's tax hike would knock off $2.5 trillion in capital formation over five years, or nearly 2% of gross domestic product.

"If we are only growing around 2% over the next five years, then we will have virtually zero growth for the period," the president of the institute, Stephen Entin, said. "This will create a permanent hit of 5% or greater to GDP."

The effect on New York will be even more acute: Wall Street accounts for nearly 9% of the city's tax revenues and up to 20% of the state's revenues; the city collected more than $3.3 billion in tax revenue from the securities industry in fiscal year 2007 and New York State collected $9.6 billion, according to New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. In addition, every job added on Wall Street results in the creation of two additional jobs in other industries in the city, and one additional job in the suburbs.

"New York does have a high fraction of its income earned from capital gains and dividends," a senior economist at the Tax Foundation, Gerald Prante, said. "New York would be one of the hardest hit areas; there is no doubt about that."

In recent weeks, the presumed Republican nominee, Senator McCain, and the likely Democratic nominee, Mr. Obama, have been disclosing more details of their tax proposals: Mr. McCain proposes extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts initiated by the Bush administration, including keeping the capital gains and dividend tax at 15%; he also proposes reducing the corporate tax rate 10 percentage points to 25%.

Mr. Obama is not only proposing raising the capital gains and dividend tax to 25% but will allow much of the Bush tax cuts to expire, including allowing the top individual income tax rate to return to 39.6%.

http://www.nysun.com/business/obama-capital-gains-tax-hike-would-hit-new-york/81902/

[retiredman]

a conservative think tank writes an oped about Obama's tax plans.

opinion, not fact.

[red states rule]

a conservative think tank writes an oped about Obama's tax plans.

opinion, not fact.

As usual you dimsiss facts as opinion. They ran the numbers and they do not lie - unlike your messiah

Tax increases have no adverse effects on the economy according to you and your party - is that what you are saying?

[retiredman]

As usual you dimsiss facts as opinion. They ran the numbers and they do not lie - unlike your messiah

Tax increases have no adverse effects on the economy according to you and your party - is that what you are saying?

I dismiss opinion as opinion. Your "opinion" that the rich will "stop investing" if their taxes go up is idiotic. Tax increases sometimes hurt the economy, and sometimes they can stimulate it. There is no simple answer that fits every economic situation.

You have yet to answer MY question:

if the rich stop investing, what do you think they will DO with their fortunes?

[red states rule]

I dismiss opinion as opinion. Your "opinion" that the rich will "stop investing" if their taxes go up is idiotic. Tax increases sometimes hurt the economy, and sometimes they can stimulate it. There is no simple answer that fits every economic situation.

You have yet to answer MY question:

if the rich stop investing, what do you think they will DO with their fortunes?

Youa re like a child. You keep saying the same crap over and over thinking you can will it to happen

I have shown a perfect example of how the rich will change their spending and investment habits when it becomes to expensive

Being a liberal hack, you refuse to accept those facts

So bit it. Should your messiah get in and Dems rape us with higher taxes we will have a replay of the Carter economy

You will be in another country and blame Pres Bush for all the problems and never question the results of your messiah's higher taxes

[retiredman]

Youa re like a child. You keep saying the same crap over and over thinking you can will it to happen

I have shown a perfect example of how the rich will change their spending and investment habits when it becomes to expensive

Being a liberal hack, you refuse to accept those facts

So bit it. Should your messiah get in and Dems rape us with higher taxes we will have a replay of the Carter economy

You will be in another country and blame Pres Bush for all the problems and never question the results of your messiah's higher taxes


we are not talking about buying yachts. we are talking about stopping investment activity. You are the one who said that if taxes went up, the rich would stop investing and stop risking their money in the economy. I merely asked you to tell me what you thought they would do with their fortunes if they did, in fact, STOP investing. YOu have been unable to answer that question. Let me know when you grow a set of balls and show you are able to back up your own wildass statements. What will the rich do with their fortunes if they do, as you claim they will do, STOP investing them?

[red states rule]

we are not talking about buying yachts. we are talking about stopping investment activity. You are the one who said that if taxes went up, the rich would stop investing and stop risking their money in the economy. I merely asked you to tell me what you thought they would do with their fortunes if they did, in fact, STOP investing. YOu have been unable to answer that question. Let me know when you grow a set of balls and show you are able to back up your own wildass statements. What will the rich do with their fortunes if they do, as you claim they will do, STOP investing them?

It is the same thing. When it becomes to expensive people change their habits

People will not invest as much, they will not hire workers, they will not take as much risk if they profit they can keep is lower

You are to blind to admit it.

[retiredman]

It is the same thing. When it becomes to expensive people change their habits

People will not invest as much, they will not hire workers, they will not take as much risk if they profit they can keep is lower

You are to blind to admit it.


what will they do with their money if not invest it? why will they not invest as much? WHy will they not hire workers? They certainly want to expand their income regardless of the tax rate... and NOBODY takes on risk just for the sake of risk.... everyone balances the risk and the reward... everyone tries to maximize profit while minimizing risk.

So answer my question: what will they DO with their fortunes? Do you think they will take them OUT of the stock market and put them in a box under their beds?

How do you think our economy operated during the first half of the 20th century when marginal tax rates were MUCH higher than today???

[red states rule]

what will they do with their money if not invest it? why will they not invest as much? WHy will they not hire workers? They certainly want to expand their income regardless of the tax rate... and NOBODY takes on risk just for the sake of risk.... everyone balances the risk and the reward... everyone tries to maximize profit while minimizing risk.

So answer my question: what will they DO with their fortunes? Do you think they will take them OUT of the stock market and put them in a box under their beds?

How do you think our economy operated during the first half of the 20th century when marginal tax rates were MUCH higher than today???

You are such an idiot. So if the tax on capital gains is nearly doubled, people will continue to invest as they are now?

Libs have been proven wrong on that multipal times. Everytime the capital gians tax has been increased revenues have DECLINED

People will not work harder when they know they will make less money

[Kathianne]

what will they do with their money if not invest it? why will they not invest as much? WHy will they not hire workers? They certainly want to expand their income regardless of the tax rate... and NOBODY takes on risk just for the sake of risk.... everyone balances the risk and the reward... everyone tries to maximize profit while minimizing risk.

So answer my question: what will they DO with their fortunes? Do you think they will take them OUT of the stock market and put them in a box under their beds?

How do you think our economy operated during the first half of the 20th century when marginal tax rates were MUCH higher than today???

Being a baby of inheritance, you should have an idea. I suppose in your case, you found those organizations that most closely reflected your pov. Assume the same for those of a different pov.

[red states rule]

Being a baby of inheritance, you should have an idea. I suppose in your case, you found those organizations that most closely reflected your pov. Assume the same for those of a different pov.

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Like a Kennedy he fails to see and grasp economic reality

[midcan5]

I find it funny that so many wingnuts argue for the rich? Sort of a reverse Robin Hood syndrome. And the opposite of Christianity's desire to help the poor. America since Reagan is heading into third world status and the wingnuts praise and still criticize those who look for a society in which everyone shares in its wealth. I have to admit conservative thinking in this area is beyond reason.

Capitalism is for the working people, socialism for the rich, as all the bailouts, tax and regulatory changes prove so often.


http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-columns/op-eds-columns/america-since-1980-a-right-turn-leading-to-a-dead-end/

how the rich use government

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/


"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

[red states rule]

I find it funny that so many wingnuts argue for the rich? Sort of a reverse Robin Hood syndrome. And the opposite of Christianity's desire to help the poor. America since Reagan is heading into third world status and the wingnuts praise and still criticize those who look for a society in which everyone shares in its wealth. I have to admit conservative thinking in this area is beyond reason.

Capitalism is for the working people, socialism for the rich, as all the bailouts, tax and regulatory changes prove so often.


http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-columns/op-eds-columns/america-since-1980-a-right-turn-leading-to-a-dead-end/

how the rich use government

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/


"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

You are so full of it

The Reagan tax cuts gave the US economy the largest peace time economic growth ever

Currently you have 1% of the taxpayers paying 40% of all federal income taxes - and that is not enough for you

As I have shown over and over, the rich finance jobs, businesses, and your social handouts

They are not a renewable money source, and like under Carter, Obama will make them reduce their spending and investments

And the people you claim to care about will pay the price for your wealth envy

[retiredman]

You are such an idiot. So if the tax on capital gains is nearly doubled, people will continue to invest as they are now?

Libs have been proven wrong on that multipal times. Everytime the capital gians tax has been increased revenues have DECLINED

People will not work harder when they know they will make less money

why are you afraid to answer my question? what will the rich do if they do not invest their money? where will they put it?

Will they invest "as they are now"? of course not. They will find investment opportunities that provide dividend income, for example, and not worry about capital gains because they won't liquidate the asset.

Do you even know what "capital gains" means?

Just quit blustering and answer my simple question.

[red states rule]

why are you afraid to answer my question? what will the rich do if they do not invest their money? where will they put it?

Will they invest "as they are now"? of course not. They will find investment opportunities that provide dividend income, for example, and not worry about capital gains because they won't liquidate the asset.

Do you even know what "capital gains" means?

Just quit blustering and answer my simple question.

You are ignoring the fact the messiah wants to nealy double the capital gains and dividend tax

Yep, even those retired folks will pay more in taxes

[midcan5]

You are so full of it

I know from your posts you are simply a rightwing moonie but still the least you can do is read some of the information in the URLs, it counters your fantasy world but I realize that world is where you feel secure. Insane people suffer the same so don't feel badly you are not alone in living in dreamville.

[retiredman]

You are ignoring the fact the messiah wants to nealy double the capital gains and dividend tax

Yep, even those retired folks will pay more in taxes

you are ignoring my question. what will the rich do with their fortunes if they do not invest them?

and do you know what the term "capital gains" even means?

[red states rule]

I know from your posts you are simply a rightwing moonie but still the least you can do is read some of the information in the URLs, it counters your fantasy world but I realize that world is where you feel secure. Insane people suffer the same so don't feel badly you are not alone in living in dreamville.

and like your liberal moonbat counterpart MFM, you dismiss facts, try to rewrite history, ignore basic econmic principals, and toss out lies, distortations, and fairy tales about fairness

[retiredman]

can't answer the simple question, can ya?

If the tax rate increases, what will the rich do with their fortunes if they do not invest them?

what DID the rich do with their fortunes from 1913 until Bush lowered their tax rate?:lol:

[red states rule]

can't answer the simple question, can ya?

If the tax rate increases, what will the rich do with their fortunes if they do not invest them?

what DID the rich do with their fortunes from 1913 until Bush lowered their tax rate?:lol:

You are to arrogant to admit the economic facts

JFK, Reagan, and Bush cut taxes and the economy grew

I have destroyed every liberal talking point you have tossed out, and ignored the historical evidence I have provided how tax increases will harm the working class you Dems claim to be worried about

Right now some Dems are wanting to raise the gax tax. Seems people are driving less and the government can't "afford" the reduction they are seeing in gas tax revenue

How typical of the left

[retiredman]

You are to arrogant to admit the economic facts

JFK, Reagan, and Bush cut taxes and the economy grew

I have destroyed every liberal talking point you have tossed out, and ignored the historical evidence I have provided how tax increases will harm the working class you Dems claim to be worried about

Right now some Dems are wanting to raise the gax tax. Seems people are driving less and the government can't "afford" the reduction they are seeing in gas tax revenue

How typical of the left

yet you are scared shitless of answering a simple question. Why IS that?:lol:

[red states rule]

yet you are scared shitless of answering a simple question. Why IS that?:lol:

I ahve

and as usual you keep ignoring the answer. It is a common tactic with you and your way of admitting defeat

[retiredman]

I ahve

and as usual you keep ignoring the answer. It is a common tactic with you and your way of admitting defeat


no. you never have. you have NEVER told me what the rich will do with their fortunes when they STOP INVESTING as you have predicted.

you have NEVER told me what the rich did with their money when the marginal tax rates were MUCH higher than they were during the Clinton administration in the days of Eisenhower and Nixon, for example. Did they STOP INVESTING then?

try to just answer those questions in a straightforward manner and I will address your answer in a similar straightforward manner. OK?

[red states rule]

no. you never have. you have NEVER told me what the rich will do with their fortunes when they STOP INVESTING as you have predicted.

you have NEVER told me what the rich did with their money when the marginal tax rates were MUCH higher than they were during the Clinton administration in the days of Eisenhower and Nixon, for example. Did they STOP INVESTING then?

try to just answer those questions in a straightforward manner and I will address your answer in a similar straightforward manner. OK?

They relocate their company, they move to where taxes are lower, they shift investments outside the US, amd find "other" ways to avoid the higher taxes

History has shown higher taxes are bad for the economy, but you seem hell bent to rake the folks over the coals once again

Ypu ignore the facts and ramble on in defense of yur party regardless off the trith

[retiredman]

They relocate their company, they move to where taxes are lower, they shift investments outside the US, amd find "other" ways to avoid the higher taxes

History has shown higher taxes are bad for the economy, but you seem hell bent to rake the folks over the coals once again

Ypu ignore the facts and ramble on in defense of yur party regardless off the trith


so.. they do NOT "stop investing" afrter all. Thanks for admitting that you had lied.

And do you think that they move out of America? Do you think that they do not have to pay taxes on income earned from foreign investments?

History has shown that, at times, higher taxes are good for the economy. but you seem to ignore that.

[red states rule]

so.. they do NOT "stop investing" afrter all. Thanks for admitting that you had lied.

And do you think that they move out of America? Do you think that they do not have to pay taxes on income earned from foreign investments?

History has shown that, at times, higher taxes are good for the economy. but you seem to ignore that.

I said they would reduce investments and change their spending and investing habits. You are getting desperate now

Higher taxes will reduce foreign investments. The US already has one of the highest corporate tax rate and Dems want to riase it. Which means fewer jobs

[retiredman]

I said they would reduce investments and change their spending and investing habits. You are getting desperate now

Higher taxes will reduce foreign investments. The US already has one of the highest corporate tax rate and Dems want to riase it. Which means fewer jobs


LIAR!

From post #56:

"makes sense. They will stop investing, stop hiring, stop expsnding their business,a nd stop taking risk"

[red states rule]

LIAR!

From post #56:

"makes sense. They will stop investing, stop hiring, stop expsnding their business,a nd stop taking risk"

and post # 68

and as you ignore, as taxes are increased, the "rich" spend less, invest less, and its is the workers of the effected companies who lose their jobs

Tax revenues decrease, and unemployment goes up

Libs try to punish the rich, but end up punishing the people they claim to care so much about


Back to your word games as you realize you are losing, and losing badly?

[retiredman]

and post # 68

and as you ignore, as taxes are increased, the "rich" spend less, invest less, and its is the workers of the effected companies who lose their jobs

Tax revenues decrease, and unemployment goes up

Libs try to punish the rich, but end up punishing the people they claim to care so much about


Back to your word games as you realize you are losing, and losing badly?

you said they will "stop investing". did you NOT mean that? If so, retract it.

[red states rule]

you said they will "stop investing". did you NOT mean that? If so, retract it.

You just keep coming back for more :laugh2:

Post 77

You are like a child. You keep saying the same crap over and over thinking you can will it to happen

I have shown a perfect example of how the rich will change their spending and investment habits when it becomes to expensive

Being a liberal hack, you refuse to accept those facts

So bit it. Should your messiah get in and Dems rape us with higher taxes we will have a replay of the Carter economy

You will be in another country and blame Pres Bush for all the problems and never question the results of your messiah's higher taxes