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.
Two people of some three million. The total financial wealth of the U.S. household was. in 2009, 55 Trillion dollars. If you confiscated all of that, the government would run for several years. Let's break it down more.
Of that, 83% is controlled by the top 20% of the people in the United States. 55t * .83 = 45.65 trillion dollars. Country would still work for a several years. But we're not interested in taking it all.
Our debt is 14.7 trillion dollars. If you took 38%, which is what they should be paying (but aren't), you're looking at roughly 17.3 trillion dollars.
For a 14.7 trillion dollar debt. A lot of their income is not generated through actual income from businesses, but through dividends and capital gains, both of which aren't counted against the income tax. They have their own, lower tax rates. As a result, they end up paying less than what they should be paying if it were counted as income. Not to mention they have significantly lower payroll taxes as well.
When you break it down, the wealthiest people pay less per total federal taxes in relation to their wealth than the bottom 80%. In fact, the bottom 80% is overtaxed by a factor of 2.
The government revenue right now I believe someone posted was 15% of the GDP. It ranges between 15 and 21%, which is a difference of almost 1 trillion dollars. As of current, each percentage point is roughly 150 billion dollars.
75% of it is tied into social security--which is mandatory spending (and taxed on its own tax), Medicaid, which is mandatory spending and taxed on its own tax, and Defense, which is discretionary spending, and one of but a few programs that constantly gets more money, despite being larger than the next ten largest countries combined in terms of defense spending.
So, if the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes on Payroll for Medicaid and Social Security, those are paid for. In the mean time, you have to justify why we spend half of our taxes dollars on the defense budget.
Speaking of saying nothing, you just have. Ad Hominem attacks are the last bastion of those without argument.
That is fascist speak. The Jews are parasites, a blight upon this great nation of Germany. I mean. The Poor. The Poor are parasites upon this great nation of America. We should do away with them, force them into labor camps, show them what true work is, right Commandant? I can't help but notice this appears to be your attitude towards the disadvantaged.
The more I present evidence, statistics, facts, and reason, the less you are willing to respond in kind. It means your position is weak and indefensible, which is why you attempt to demonize me by saying I speak like Mao, Lenin, and Castro. I'm glad to see I've won. Can we tax the rich now?
Your facts are irrelevant because if they support anything, they support things that are counterproductive and destructive.
Helping poor people live better lives on the sweat of others is NOT a good thing. You may think it is, but it isn't. First, it is a disincentive for the "poor" to try harder, because you are subsidizing them. Second, it is a disincentive to the productive who have the fruits of their labors stolen from them to support bums.
Anecdotal, but the cost of a new car, while large up-front, is often cheaper in the long run than buying a used car and having to repair it every 3-6 months, or continually repairing a car that's in need of--constant repair. The phrase "cut your losses" comes to mind.
But again, your story is anecdotal.
Then don't. Save your money.
Your sarcasm doesn't go by un-noticed. The taxes we're talking about here are generally for people making over 250,000, but could be as low as 100,000, as that 100,000 represents the top 20% in control of 83% of the U.S. wealth. However, the majority of that wealth is still concentrated in the top 10, 5, and 1% of the country. 1%, 3,000,000 people, hold onto 40% of the wealth of the country.
You're in the lower-middle-class, working-poor depending on dependents. At 40,000, you're over-taxed as well. The entire bracket between ~30%-80% of the population by wealth is overtaxed, because the welathy, the top twenty and importantly, top ten percent, pay less taxes proportionally than their wealth allows.
Combine that with the fact that most poor and middle class have all their wealth tied into their homes, where as the wealthy do not. When something like the housing market crashes, the vast majority of American citizens lose big.
I didn't say my car was a piece of junk,car was listed 5,000, cause I had cash in my hands I was able to get it for 3,000$. had it for 4 years breaks tune up oil changes belts changes are all done by me. any mechanical part that only requires changing an old part for a new one, I do it my self , saves me lots of money. the fact that my car is only worth 3,000$ I don't need full coverage ins. I pay 167$ every 6 months in 4 years Ive own that car I have saved 2,680$ on ins. premiums alone!! you take a new car of the lot and you've lost that much in matter of days!! now you add interest and full coverage ins. and you may end up paying for that car twice. guess people that don't have to pay for their own things really don't care how much they pay for them. and there in , lies the problem! I do not feel poor, at all!!
Your facts are irrelevant because if they support anything, they support things that are counterproductive and destructive.
I see, they support something you are against, so they are irrelevant.
Quote:
Helping poor people live better lives on the sweat of others is NOT a good thing.
Reducing poverty isn't a good thing?
Quote:
You may think it is, but it isn't. First, it is a disincentive for the "poor" to try harder,
Yes, because James here who makes $35,000 as a sales representative who just lost his house thanks to a $200,000 medical bill isn't "trying hard enough" to make ends meet. He should be middle-management at least, because if he isn't, he's not trying hard enough.
Quote:
because you are subsidizing them. Second, it is a disincentive to the productive who have the fruits of their labors stolen from them to support bums.
And those in poverty aren't productive?
Quote:
Can you not see this?
Can you provide any evidence or argument that isn't a complete farce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gysmo
I didn't say my car was a piece of junk,car was listed 5,000, cause I had cash in my hands I was able to get it for 3,000$. had it for 4 years breaks tune up oil changes belts changes are all done by me. any mechanical part that only requires changing an old part for a new one, I do it my self ,
Congratulations, you're part of a very few people who have the technical know-how to fix a car. So--other people without this knowledge are automatically bad because they choose to purchase a new car which will be cheaper than taking in an older-model which is a mess of problems? Maybe we should let poor people only buy Hondas.They'll never need to buy a new car again.
Quote:
saves me lots of money. the fact that my car is only worth 3,000$ I don't need full coverage ins. I pay 167$ every 6 months in 4 years Ive own that car I have saved 2,680$ on ins. premiums alone!! you take a new car of the lot and you've lost that much in matter of days!! now you add interest and full coverage ins. and you may end up paying for that car twice. guess people that don't have to pay for their own things really don't care how much they pay for them. and there in , lies the problem! I do not feel poor, at all!!
And how would someone pay for that used car twice, three times, when it has to under-go maintenance at a pretty regular schedule? New cars have warranties, most insurance carriers (assuming you need insurance) carry replacement policies for up to three years. The cost\benefit of new-vs-used pends on the owner.
GENERAL welfare of the United States, not the individual welfare of only some of its citizens.
The general health of the nation is provided through the reduction of poverty in the United States. I win.
Quote:
And I've posted MULTIPLE times that the top 1% earns 20% of the income but pays 38% of the federal income tax revenue. They pay nearly TWICE their fair share.
And I've repeatedly pointed out that income isn't the only thing taxed. We can keep going in circles, and we probably will, and since neither of us is going to accept the others' argument, I have the benefit of the following: In the end of the day, 72% of the population will agree with me--and I suspect more if they actually knew how much the wealthy were getting away with.
I see, they support something you are against, so they are irrelevant.
Reducing poverty isn't a good thing?
Yes, because James here who makes $35,000 as a sales representative who just lost his house thanks to a $200,000 medical bill isn't "trying hard enough" to make ends meet. He should be middle-management at least, because if he isn't, he's not trying hard enough.
And those in poverty aren't productive?
Can you provide any evidence or argument that isn't a complete farce?
Congratulations, you're part of a very few people who have the technical know-how to fix a car. So--other people without this knowledge are automatically bad because they choose to purchase a new car which will be cheaper than taking in an older-model which is a mess of problems? Maybe we should let poor people only buy Hondas.They'll never need to buy a new car again.
And how would someone pay for that used car twice, three times, when it has to under-go maintenance at a pretty regular schedule? New cars have warranties, most insurance carriers (assuming you need insurance) carry replacement policies for up to three years. The cost\benefit of new-vs-used pends on the owner.
well I don't call them uneducated cause they cant fix a car!! but I do call them perasites if they can only buy a new car on the tax payers dime. most use cars are no problem at all, and most horror stories you hear about used car. are people who take their cars to the shop with no knowledge about cars so yes they are taken for a ride.
I think the real problem is Big Money hiding from the tax man, the "Rich" have legalized tax evasion, start with or abolish the tax code.
I see more parasitic behavior at the top than the bottom, most people achieve uber-wealth through legislation that precludes others, rich types are predatorial, I don't see poor people behaving that way, they don't care they just want the basic needs met, I don't think we should demonize people for that.Think of it in your terms, it just means less competition.
Just the amount of income not reported by the non-rich would apy the national debt alone from governamnt figures. The main reason we should simpify the tax code to be on income alone is its a specail interest mess from poorer to richer. That would eman no lopholes only dedustion for number supported ;harder to cheat and easier to catch any cheating. It really doens;'t matter o how low or high the income a cheat is a cheat.The is actaully a bill with a new form that is one page and 29 lines circulating in congress now.
Yeah, this has been destroyed already six times from Tuesday. It doesn't account for other taxes, like payroll, dividends, capital gains, etc. As I've shown in another thread, the poor and middle class are actually paying a lot more than they should.
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.
