Is San Francisco the only city to have completely priced out its middle/working class? (Fremont: section 8, rentals)

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Which is the democratic talking point whenever you talk about holding people accountable for rampent abuse, reforming abused programs or showing that more than half (58%) of all federal spending is on various social programs.

But if a republican ever suggest trimming just a little fat or preventing abuse (so we would have money for those that truely need help) the "republicans want to hurt poor people" song and dance starts up.

Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

That's all mandatory spending, and doesn't mean programs within it aren't be defunded.

if you want more money, tax the rich, they have plenty of it. But don't let a republican hear you say that, they prefer policies that lead to rising inequality and economic crises, which hurts the poor.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Ultimately, it all boils down to building more, denser, housing or not.

Yep, and I strongly support building a LOT of dense housing. I would argue that all major cities should ban the construction of new single family homes. They can build luxury condos if they want, but they have to be inside of a building that contains MANY other condos.

Especially in SF. I don't think building new single family homes benefits SF at all. It should be ONLY dense housing there.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Stephen1110

That's all mandatory spending, and doesn't mean programs within it aren't be defunded.

if you want more money, tax the rich, they have plenty of it. But don't let a republican hear you say that, they prefer policies that lead to rising inequality and economic crises, which hurts the poor.

That's funny. The top 40% of wage earners pay 106% of taxes (because the bottom has negative taxes)
The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes

The top 10% of earners pay over 70% of the income taxes
http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news...my/rich-taxes/

Of course you are going to talk about "corporate taxes" which are high already. But all corporate income tax is another tax on consumers who lay the actual defered cost of the taxes in the products and services we buy.

And those super evil 1% that the democrats loathe for not paying their fair share actually pay more in taxes than the bottom 90% combined.
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/top-1-...tom-90-percent

The rich, which I am not apart of, already pay more than their "fair share", they pay their own share and the share of over half the population.

Nothing like a little bit of class warfare when losing an argument.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

That's funny. The top 40% of wage earners pay 106% of taxes (because the bottom has negative taxes)
The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes

The top 10% of earners pay over 70% of the income taxes
The rich pay majority of U.S. income taxes - Mar. 12, 2013

Of course you are going to talk about "corporate taxes" which are high already. But all corporate income tax is another tax on consumers who lay the actual defered cost of the taxes in the products and services we buy.

And those super evil 1% that the democrats loathe for not paying their fair share actually pay more in taxes than the bottom 90% combined.
The Top 1 Percent Pays More in Taxes than the Bottom 90 Percent | Tax Foundation

The rich, which I am not apart of, already pay more than their "fair share", they pay their own share and the share of over half the population.

Nothing like a little bit of class warfare when losing an argument.

You have taken one tax, income tax, out of the total tax burden. When it comes to state and local taxes, low and middle class taxpayers pay disproportionately more than the rich Do the wealthy pay lower taxes than the middle class?

When you look at the total tax burden and see what is paid as a percent of income it is apparent that a wage earner who earns $45,500 and pays 26.9% of that in tax is going to find it far more difficult to meet day to day expenses than a millionaire who has a total tax burden of 33.3% of a cash income of $1,542,000. Who Pays Taxes in America in 2014? | CTJReports

Also relevant to this discussion is how much of the money actually brought in by an individual is subject to taxation. The middle class do not have adequate income to use tax avoidance schemes and generally don't have a yacht that they can write off as a tax deduction so almost all of their income is subject to taxation unlike the ultra rich.

The corporate tax rate in the US is high, but it is not nearly as high when you calculate the allowable deductions, in fact it drops from #1 to about average. Does the U.S. have the highest corporate tax rate in the free world? | PunditFact

I'm not going to argue this to death because I don't think it is really relevant to the topic, but neither am I going to let your claims go unchallenged.

[peninsular]

Great points, 2sleepy. On the point of negative taxes, isn't that a good thing from the conservative point of view to have negative tax at the bottom of the scale? Wouldn't you rather have the working poor who, while contributing to the economy, receive some of the state benefits instead of the unemployed, whose only source of income is the state?

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

And those super evil 1% that the democrats loathe for not paying their fair share actually pay more in taxes than the bottom 90% combined.
The Top 1 Percent Pays More in Taxes than the Bottom 90 Percent | Tax Foundation

Yeah but the point of saying they should pay more is that they are not paying as much as they could afford. At the beginning of the JFK administration, they were paying 90% of their income. Now it's down to 35%. Perhaps it should be raised to 50%, or left at 35% but no deductions allowed.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

And those super evil 1% that the democrats loathe for not paying their fair share actually pay more in taxes than the bottom 90% combined.
The Top 1 Percent Pays More in Taxes than the Bottom 90 Percent | Tax Foundation

No, they don't. Many of them pay less than the lower middle class pays. Romney, Obama and H. Clinton paid less tax then their own secretaries. This is scandalous. The (shrinking) middle class is carrying a disproportionate amount of the tax burden.

[Stephen1110]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

That's funny. The top 40% of wage earners pay 106% of taxes (because the bottom has negative taxes)
The rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes

The top 10% of earners pay over 70% of the income taxes
The rich pay majority of U.S. income taxes - Mar. 12, 2013

Of course you are going to talk about "corporate taxes" which are high already. But all corporate income tax is another tax on consumers who lay the actual defered cost of the taxes in the products and services we buy.

And those super evil 1% that the democrats loathe for not paying their fair share actually pay more in taxes than the bottom 90% combined.
The Top 1 Percent Pays More in Taxes than the Bottom 90 Percent | Tax Foundation

The rich, which I am not apart of, already pay more than their "fair share", they pay their own share and the share of over half the population.

Nothing like a little bit of class warfare when losing an argument.

So who is losing the argument again? You spoke waaay too soon....

Furthermore,

From 1913 - 1933 and 1977 - 2008, the top earners gained most of the income gains. What happened? Yes, you guessed it correctly. When the top earners share of the national income peaks (23.9% in 1928, 23.5% in 2007) there is a major economic crisis. During these time periods, median wages declined and stagnated, economy performance worsened and collapsed. From 1947 - 1977, when more of the income gains went to the middle class, due to high top marginal tax rates, median wages surged and the economy grew faster, given the ability of the middle class to consume more, and better jobs were created.

Notice any patterns?


https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wo...xthresh311.png


http://i.imgur.com/VJfjIEn.jpg


https://acivilamericandebate.files.w...income-us1.png

Class dismissed....

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

No, they don't. Many of them pay less than the lower middle class pays. Romney, Obama and H. Clinton paid less tax then their own secretaries. This is scandalous. The (shrinking) middle class is carrying a disproportionate amount of the tax burden.

Romney, for example, had to donate tens of millions of dollars to lower his tax rate. If his secretary donated half their income to charity they would not pay any taxes, yet romney still paid on top of all of those donations.

It is like you are not happy unless you take all of their money.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Stephen1110

So who is losing the argument again? You spoke waaay too soon....

Furthermore,

From 1913 - 1933 and 1977 - 2008, the top earners gained most of the income gains. What happened? Yes, you guessed it correctly. When the top earners share of the national income peaks (23.9% in 1928, 23.5% in 2007) there is a major economic crisis. During these time periods, median wages declined and stagnated, economy performance worsened and collapsed. From 1947 - 1977, when more of the income gains went to the middle class, due to high top marginal tax rates, median wages surged and the economy grew faster, given the ability of the middle class to consume more, and better jobs were created.

Notice any patterns?


https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wo...xthresh311.png


http://i.imgur.com/VJfjIEn.jpg


https://acivilamericandebate.files.w...income-us1.png

Class dismissed....

It's ok, we all get out talking points from somewhere.

Top income earners now are still paying the same percentage of the tax burden as when the income tax rate was 90%.
Peter Schiff: The Fantasy of a 91% Top Income Tax Rate - WSJ

No mater how you slice it, the rich are paying more than their fair share and pushing to confiscate 90% of someone's income like it is a good idea is strait up thievery. You might have seen Robin Hood one too many times as a kid.

And, instead of randomly cherry picking a specific date which suits your argument, why not reflect on what income tax started as and where it is today.