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.
The military alone is about 30% of the budget, then if you add in the costs of the war, and veterans benefits, it goes much higher.
Who benefits from medicare? The poorer American does at a lower level, but many of the ultra rich of this country are involved in the health care industry, which draws most of that money and charges rates that are to high for the services received in a lot of cases. Who benefits from that more?
Social security? Everyone benefits equally, the ultra rich are income capped on what they can pay out, so they aren't getting anything more or less then the rest of Americans. Social security is a self sustaining system, if it were removed from the general budget, to pay for the military.
You are trying far too hard to try to say that the rich, are benefiting from 98% of the federal government spending, to the point this is becoming laughable.
Lets dumb this down shall we?
Tell me how Bill Gates benefits from Social Security or medicare..
No, they use most of the governments money and resources.
I'll tell you how, the military. The military can be seen as protecting American property. Since the wealthiest 2% control 98% of everything in this country, that means they use the lions share of budget. Not to mention food and everything else that they use which is on par with what everyone else is using themselves, if not more. Also, police protection, without it there would be anarchy in the streets, which isn't good for their businesses and bottom line, so they use more of that protection.
The top 2% of Americans use most of the governments services far more then the average American.
Not 98%, thats bogus. SHow me the calculations on that....if you don't have data it is a bit hard to believe. I doubt 2% control 98% of everything in this country...certainly the 2% don't use 98% of the food...so that just invalidated your argument. The argument is weak, the wealthy don't use 98% of police protection.
Huum - Federal funding for eduction, for medicare, medicaid, ...another area they don't pay 98% of..but you suggesting they should pay for thsoe services as well.
You're having some trouble following along. I understand, it is a long thread with a lot of big words for a Tennessee fan to follow, but this is about wealth, not income.
No chuckles, I am doing just fine. Actually I live in Boston....but good try anyway.
Others have confused both wealth and income ...obviously they are different. But your intent is to make a hadn waving argument as to how people who are already carrying the lions share of taxes should buck up and pay more for the leaches who are like the folks in Greece....
That author isn't being truthful in their claims. Wolff's data actually indicates a decline in the top 1%'s share of the wealth since 1995: Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
so what did we learn here? that your sources suck just as badly as mine do? that there is no reliable source of information regarding wealth distribution?
Sure they count for the economies of India and some of the third world countries that they are pimping for cheap labor
yeah because we all know Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, dont provide jobs for americans.. ooh wait.. yes they do.. Warren Buffet has a payroll of 200,000 americans alone
It is almost laughable that low income people justify giving tax cuts to the rich. It is already proven that Reganomics does not work, but instead they (the rich) managed to get more cuts and benefits from laws and treaties that have been passed (NAFTA) that increase their profits.
like I said, it is revenue neutral.... meaning it does not increase taxes, it just shifts them around to different payers.
I agree the federal income tax burden should be shifted around to be more equitable. Currently, the top 1% is paying nearly twice what they should. That needs to be brought more in line with their actual percentage share of the income.
Quote:
The Mercatus Center was founded by Rich Fink, former president of the Koch Family Foundations, which funds a network of market-oriented think tanks and advocacy groups. Originally it was called the Center for Market Processes and established at the Rutgers University. After the providing of several millions dollars to the George Mason University from the Koch Family it moved to George Mason in the mid-1980s before assuming its current name in 1999.[2] The Mercatus Center is entirely funded through donations, including from companies like Koch Industries[3] and ExxonMobil[4], individual donors and foundations.
Gee, I wonder what conclusion the former "Center for Market Processes" is going to reach about the effectiveness of government spending.
You can dislike the funding of the source, but you'll have to prove that the academicians are lying about their findings and disprove the factual data. Show your work. We'll wait...
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.
