U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-10-2011, 09:30 PM
 
Location: it depends
6,074 posts, read 5,146,990 times
Reputation: 5767

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Can you provide any examples of this "socialist agenda?" From where I sit, Obama has conceded everything to the Republicans. On health care, what his bill ended up becoming is what the Republicans proposed in 1993 as an alternative to Bill Clinton's H C proposal; On taxes, we still have the same rates that were lowered by Bush and the modest rate increases on the rich that Obama proposes are lower than under Reagan. It's laughable to consider those 'Socialism.' So what, exactly, is this "socialist agenda?" Please give examples.
Obama took the means of production from its rightful owners and gave it to the workers. Auto bailout, read about it. Textbook definition of socialism, look it up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-10-2011, 11:08 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 38,585,627 times
Reputation: 7106
See the low point - around 2005 - 2006?

There is a reason I said "precipitous"...which is what you see mid 2009....a drop RIGHT OFF THE FRIGGIN CLIFF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 05:42 AM
 
25,367 posts, read 37,646,444 times
Reputation: 13286
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/us...ef=todayspaper



Wow! Another record falls under obamanomics.

And this man claims the economy is getting better under his gentle ministrations?

I guess that could be claimed, if you IGNORE every single economic indicator out there.
Wow the man keeps breaking records....will he also be the first person who has to turn in his Nobel Peace Prize...ohh never mind hardly anybody cares after all Jasser Arafat the terrorist won one too...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 06:34 AM
 
624 posts, read 869,490 times
Reputation: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
Please note, in the graph below, when the household income began its free-fall. What we are seeing now is the fallout of Bush's recession. These things take time. However, you bring up a good point why the millionaires should be taxed fairly as the bottom 95% of income earners have paid a higher price in the past 5-10 years.
Though I'm not a millionaire, it sickens me to hear the implication that the millionaires are taxed unfairly and should be taxed more.

Do you know that 45% of all tax payers pay NO federal income tax?


45% of households owe no federal income tax for 2010 - Apr. 17, 2011

Also note, that top 1% paid 38% of all federal taxes. Top 5% of tax payers paid 59% of the federal tax.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

When do you start paying your fair share?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,073,074 times
Reputation: 5600
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo View Post
Obama took the means of production from its rightful owners and gave it to the workers. Auto bailout, read about it. Textbook definition of socialism, look it up.
Where did you read about it, in the Bazaaroland Tribune?

Your assertion is so out of the bounds of reality it is difficult to know where to start to correct it.

1) General Motors and Chrysler were going bankrupt and the "rightful owners" would have been left with worthless stock certificates.
2) The rescue plan is similar to when that 'Socialist' Reagan bailed out Chrysler in the 1980s. The Bush Admin started this bailout. I guess you think Bush is a Socialist too.

3) In order to save General Motors and Chrysler, the Boards of both companies agreed for the government to loan money to the firms to rescue them. In return, the government received some stock but certainly not the entire company.

(On June 8, 2009, General Motors filed for reorganization under the provisions of Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code. On July 10, 2009, with financing partially provided by the US Government, General Motors emerged from reorganization. GM was re-listed on the NYSE on November 18, 2010, setting the record for the largest IPO in US history with a value of $20.1 billion.)

4) No stock was transferred to the workers, as you profess.

As we sit today, both companies have returned to profitability and are doing brisk sales. Workers, whose 2 or 3 million jobs would have been lost, are employed. Suppliers, who would have faced bankruptcy themselves, are also in business.

The government sold 94% of Chrysler has reached a deal with Fiat to sell its remaining 6% for $500 million. The companies have repaid nearly all loans and the government is weighing selling its remaining shares of GM.

The bailout was a great thing that saved two pillars of American manufacturing and millions of jobs. Using this example to brand Obama a Socialist is just evidence of how warped the thinking process of the extremist right-wing has become.

Last edited by MTAtech; 10-11-2011 at 08:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,073,074 times
Reputation: 5600
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV View Post
Though I'm not a millionaire, it sickens me to hear the implication that the millionaires are taxed unfairly and should be taxed more.

Do you know that 45% of all tax payers pay NO federal income tax?


45% of households owe no federal income tax for 2010 - Apr. 17, 2011

Also note, that top 1% paid 38% of all federal taxes. Top 5% of tax payers paid 59% of the federal tax.

The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

When do you start paying your fair share?
So? 45% of all tax payers pay NO federal income tax. They also make little income. Jon Stewart showed how if you took 1/2 the assets -- not just income, of this 45% it would equal $700 billion -- the amount that would be raised by undoing the upper income portion of Bush tax-cuts. The reality is that although the hard-right makes a big deal about this, taxing those that now don't pay taxes doesn't bring in much money while it imposes a hardship on those people.

Moreover, those 45% may not pay income taxes but they pay payroll taxes on every nickel they earn.

Assuming that the top 1% paid 38% of all federal taxes, is correct, they also take in the bulk of the income too and pay low rates. Look at the IRS data on returns for the 400 highest incomes in America (pdf) — specifically, Table 43. If you look at the numbers since 2004, you’ll see that in a typical year between 30 and 40 percent of those super-high-income players paid an average tax rate of less than 15 percent; most of them paid less than 20 percent.

Last edited by MTAtech; 10-11-2011 at 08:49 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 10:16 AM
 
624 posts, read 869,490 times
Reputation: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
So? 45% of all tax payers pay NO federal income tax. They also make little income. Jon Stewart showed how if you took 1/2 the assets -- not just income, of this 45% it would equal $700 billion -- the amount that would be raised by undoing the upper income portion of Bush tax-cuts. The reality is that although the hard-right makes a big deal about this, taxing those that now don't pay taxes doesn't bring in much money while it imposes a hardship on those people.

Moreover, those 45% may not pay income taxes but they pay payroll taxes on every nickel they earn.

Assuming that the top 1% paid 38% of all federal taxes, is correct, they also take in the bulk of the income too and pay low rates. Look at the IRS data on returns for the 400 highest incomes in America (pdf) — specifically, Table 43. If you look at the numbers since 2004, you’ll see that in a typical year between 30 and 40 percent of those super-high-income players paid an average tax rate of less than 15 percent; most of them paid less than 20 percent.
First, if Stewart says what you said he says, then he is an idiot. Government taxes you based on income, not based on assets. So, it's irrelevant how much money you'd get if you took assets away.

Second, how is it FAIR for top 1% to pay 38% of all tax burden? Is it fair for them to pay even more, while the rest whine and complain?
What is the meaning of 'fair share'?

Would you like to pay my expenses while I go and join the protesters?

Third, I think you are confused on how the taxing works. Everyone is taxed on a progressive scale.

Say, you are single, earning 100,000/year.

» Official 2011 US Income Tax Brackets (IRS Tax Rates)

Per the current tax rates, you'd pay 10% on the 8500 (that's 850), 15% on the 8500-34,500 (that's 15% of 2600=3900), 25% on the 34500-83600 (that's 25% of 49100 or 12275) and 28% on the 83600-100000 (that's 28% of 16400 or 4592)

So, presuming no write offs, you would pay 21.6% of your income on taxes even though you are in the 28% tax bracket.

Fourth. You make an interesting observation in saying that taking those who don't bring in much money (bottom 55%, I presume) won't bring much money. What are your sources on this?

Per this news article
47% of households owe no tax - and their ranks are growing - Sep. 30, 2009

63.5 MILLION households had no liability in 2009. If we made them pay $2000, we'd collect 127 BILLION in annual tax revenue. And 127 Billion is no small chunk of change.

By contrast, there are only 759,000 of those making over 100K. To get 127BILLION from them, you'd need each to pay 167,400K each (more than 100% of income from many of these).

So, I say tax the lower brackets
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,073,074 times
Reputation: 5600
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV View Post
First, if Stewart says what you said he says, then he is an idiot. Government taxes you based on income, not based on assets. So, it's irrelevant how much money you'd get if you took assets away.

Second, how is it FAIR for top 1% to pay 38% of all tax burden? Is it fair for them to pay even more, while the rest whine and complain?
What is the meaning of 'fair share'?

Would you like to pay my expenses while I go and join the protesters?

Third, I think you are confused on how the taxing works. Everyone is taxed on a progressive scale.

Say, you are single, earning 100,000/year.

» Official 2011 US Income Tax Brackets (IRS Tax Rates)

Per the current tax rates, you'd pay 10% on the 8500 (that's 850), 15% on the 8500-34,500 (that's 15% of 2600=3900), 25% on the 34500-83600 (that's 25% of 49100 or 12275) and 28% on the 83600-100000 (that's 28% of 16400 or 4592)

So, presuming no write offs, you would pay 21.6% of your income on taxes even though you are in the 28% tax bracket.

Fourth. You make an interesting observation in saying that taking those who don't bring in much money (bottom 55%, I presume) won't bring much money. What are your sources on this?

Per this news article
47% of households owe no tax - and their ranks are growing - Sep. 30, 2009

63.5 MILLION households had no liability in 2009. If we made them pay $2000, we'd collect 127 BILLION in annual tax revenue. And 127 Billion is no small chunk of change.

By contrast, there are only 759,000 of those making over 100K. To get 127BILLION from them, you'd need each to pay 167,400K each (more than 100% of income from many of these).

So, I say tax the lower brackets
First, the top 400 taxpayers earn as much as the bottom 50%. That's why taxing the bottom 50% doesn't yield much money. There isn't that much there.

Second, Stewart's point (video) was that wealth is more than income and even using wealth, taking 50% of their wealth is the same as taking 3% of the income of the top 1%. It's a meritorious comparison.

If you made everyone of all the households that paid no taxes pay $2,000, you'd be taxing little of ladies who collect $8,000 a year in pension, $2,000. You'd also be taxing children who file because they earned a couple hundred dollars in interest, $2,000. That proposal makes no sense.

Also, I don't know where you get your figures that there are only 759,000 people earning $100,000 or more. According to the IRS (xls) in 2007 there were 6,240,777 returns between $100,000 and $200,000 alone, in which we already collect $105 billion.. That doesn't include all the ones above $200,000

Last edited by MTAtech; 10-11-2011 at 11:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 01:54 PM
 
2,490 posts, read 3,624,399 times
Reputation: 2865
And yet even after this information was released, the Dow went up more than 300 points yesterday on news that Europe is getting its financial crisis "under control" leading financial analysts and news reporters to scream for joy that the economy is "recovering". Out of touch much?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Salisbury,NC
9,571 posts, read 3,873,931 times
Reputation: 4164
I believe that the weakening of the first Stimulus to get it passed by Sen. Repub. was the bad part of the Stim. It is going to take a lot of cash put through the system to get it working again.
Lets see if we can stay away from a war with the Chinese, as it seems the conservative think tanks are starting to suggest(Rand Corp).
We need a WW2 style investment and taxes and cuts in spending to do this. One of the first cuts should be Medicare part D the unfunded system the Repub. put in to help there corp. buddies.
Stim. can work check out the Yadkin River Bridge Project
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top