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.
(didn't see this mentioned in any previous posts....if it was.....oops)
While the poor get social programs worth $365 billion, the rich get more. Subsidies to help the prosperous build wealth added up to $384 billion last year (2009).
The shift of income to the top has occurred in the most prosperous English-speaking nations, such as Australia, Britain, and Canada. But it has been most pronounced in the United States. Thirty years ago, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 9 percent of total national income. By 2007, they had 23 percent. Last year, new census data show, the rich-poor income gap was the widest on record.
The top 20 percent of wealth-holders own 84 percent of America's wealth.
By embedding so much of the asset-building policy into the tax code as deductions and exclusions, the federal government naturally favors those who pay the most taxes – though it’s worth noting that the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers received 45 percent of the federal asset budget while paying in 27 percent of the tax revenue.
Don't worry, this last feeding of the parasites broke our credit limit. Our credit score is collapsing. Interest will rise pretty quick. Neither political party seems to care about even making the minimum payment
(didn't see this mentioned in any previous posts....if it was.....oops)
While the poor get social programs worth $365 billion, the rich get more. Subsidies to help the prosperous build wealth added up to $384 billion last year (2009).
The shift of income to the top has occurred in the most prosperous English-speaking nations, such as Australia, Britain, and Canada. But it has been most pronounced in the United States. Thirty years ago, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 9 percent of total national income. By 2007, they had 23 percent. Last year, new census data show, the rich-poor income gap was the widest on record.
The top 20 percent of wealth-holders own 84 percent of America's wealth.
Maybe that's why us hardworking types have such disdain for those with their hand constantly out. I have supported myself since I was 19 years old.
Now it seems I support a small village!
(didn't see this mentioned in any previous posts....if it was.....oops)
While the poor get social programs worth $365 billion, the rich get more. Subsidies to help the prosperous build wealth added up to $384 billion last year (2009).
The shift of income to the top has occurred in the most prosperous English-speaking nations, such as Australia, Britain, and Canada. But it has been most pronounced in the United States. Thirty years ago, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 9 percent of total national income. By 2007, they had 23 percent. Last year, new census data show, the rich-poor income gap was the widest on record.
The top 20 percent of wealth-holders own 84 percent of America's wealth.
This money helps the more prosperous buy homes, save money, start businesses, pay for college, and retire comfortably. More than half of that sum went to the wealthiest 5 percent of tax-payers. The top 1 percent got an average $95,000 in federal help. Upper-middle-income families making $100,000 got $1,600. The poor got less than $5.
1) From what I understand, this money, ALL of it, is available to all. The rich perhaps are just either smart enough to take advantage of these programs or more aware of said programs so they are able to take advantage.
2) This should not be another way to demonize the rich. The article does not go into detail about these programs they refer to (a sign that there is some fudging going on), but I imagine these subsidies are in the form of SBA loans, mortgages through Fannie and Freddie, Pell grants, and other things I don't know about. Probably has to do with the tax code as well, since "the wealthy" also take mortgage interest deductions and whatnot. But the logic here is flawed: ANYBODY who owns a home with a mortgage can write this off, not just those evil wealthy. Honestly anybody can buy a home. Perhaps not a great home, but an old and cheap home, with little to no money down or out of pocket (100% financing, seller pays closing costs, etc.). So the argument that only the rich or even the middle class can buy homes is not valid.
From the second link:
Quote:
This inequity is all but invisible because the wealth-building strategies are mostly tucked into the federal tax code—as deductions, credits and preferential rates
1) So I was right about the tax stuff. However, anybody who owns a business that is not incorporated, has a mortgage, goes to college, etc. can use these deductions and credits. NOT just those evil wealthy.
2) The rich absolutely do not get preferential tax rates, they are disproportionately taxed. A progressive tax structure is not fair to anybody, since the people who make less are not taxed enough and the rich are taxed too much. Anybody with two eyes can see that 30% is greater than 10% or in many cases, zero. The premise in the article that the rich get "preferential rates" is false.
From the third link:
Quote:
The Federal Government spent $384 billion
to help households build assets in fiscal year 2009. Every taxpayer who took a deduction for interest
on a mortgage or a small business loan; every employee who deposited tax-deferred money into
a 401(k) plan or an IRA; and every family who took advantage of Pell Grants or tuition tax credits
for college benefited from these strategies. Nine out of 10 federal dollars spent to help individuals
build assets were in the form of tax expenditures, rather than direct budget outlays.
1) So again, I was right. and again, ANYBODY can take these monies to start or build a business, finance a mortgage, start an IRA for the tax advantages, or get an education.
2) The only specific information I have on these programs is regarding the Pell grant due to looking it up for another thread the other day. While the Pell is available to people in households making up to $50k/year, the majority of people who use this money come from HHs making under $20k. But yet the report and articles try to make this out to seem like the wealthy are the only recipients of this money. THAT is completely misleading and irresponsible journalism.
Students with a total family income up to $50,000 may be eligible for Pell Grants, though most Pell funding goes to students with a total family income below $20,000.
So to answer the question posed by the OP: No, absolutely not, the system is not "rigged" for the rich.
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.
