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.
If you are an American that is making over $250,000 then your income has increased at a rate faster than any other income segment of the population for the past 30% years.
Assuming your figures are correct, (and rarely are they) Did you even bother to ask yourself why this is true, considering governmental support for the poor is at an all time high? What is it, 40,000,000 on welfare for example?
NEWS FLASH, its because of this government system which SUPPORTS the lower end of society the rich are able to get richer. If you get more people dependent on government to survive, the result is that that arent, will earn more. There is $x profit being made in society, if its not being made by 1/2 of society, then the other 1/2 is.. The more you get at the bottom, the more on the top will earn..
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
That’s the credo of the Republican Party.
Perpetuating wealth under the guise that you are helping the poor is the credo of the Democratic Party.. Sorry, I dont like to support poverty, its a shame so many of you guys do..
12 pages and nobody can explain why taxing those above $250k will create any jobs. Pathetic.
They can't....it is that simple. It is class envy and the belief that the Govt should have more of a say in how we spend our money, and to make sure that social programs continue...to make things "fair".
They've already compromised too much by agreeing to extend any of the tax cuts. The reality is the GOP hasn't given up anything and for there to be a real compromise both sides must give up something.
Obama says they can't afford the Bush tax cuts. Then how come they managed to afford the Stimulus package, Obamacare and so forth?
You seem to not understand the difference between a one time expenditure (like the stimulus bill) and reoccurring expenses that happen year after year after year. Personally, I blame the educational system other wise people like you might be able to tell the difference.
They've done a miraculous job of convincing the "middle class" that those of us who are successful don't "pay our fair share", even though the top 5% of earners in this country pay something like 65% of all the taxes in the country.
That's a lie. You're only talking about income taxes but pay roll taxes make up over 50% of all the taxes paid. Income taxes only around 40% of taxes paid with royalty payments, excess payments, tariff payments, gasoline taxes, and sin taxes making up the other 10% of taxes at the Federal level.
Anyone who claims, as you have, that the top 5% pays anything close to 65% of the taxes can safely be dismissed as someone too ignorant to bother with.
That's a lie. You're only talking about income taxes but pay roll taxes make up over 50% of all the taxes paid. Income taxes only around 40% of taxes paid with royalty payments, excess payments, tariff payments, gasoline taxes, and sin taxes making up the other 10% of taxes at the Federal level.
Anyone who claims, as you have, that the top 5% pays anything close to 65% of the taxes can safely be dismissed as someone too ignorant to bother with.
The top 5% pays 44.3%, the top 10% cover 55.0% of all federal income tax liabilities. And yes, that figure includes excises taxes, social insurance taxes, and corporate taxes.
If we consider only income taxes, the top 5% are responsible for 61%.
There is an excellent page on the CBO website with all this information:
Congressional Budget Office - Distribution of Federal Taxes (http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=13 - broken link)
You seem to not understand the difference between a one time expenditure (like the stimulus bill) and reoccurring expenses that happen year after year after year. Personally, I blame the educational system other wise people like you might be able to tell the difference.
That wasnt an answer.. What you dont seem to understand is that 1 stimulus bill = 11 YEARS of the so called tax cuts in question. So if the 1 time expenditure, putting money back into the economy is good, then obviously doing so 11 years in a row would be also..
I myself blame the education system for not educating people like you on how money into the economy = money into the economy, and if its good, its good..
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.
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.
