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.
Thats a silly question. It almost implies that money isnt yours, it belongs to the government, and supporting people keeping their money is a ridiculous position. I disagree
That is how the dems, and especially 0bama, look at our wealth. They think any money we earn belongs to the government, and we are to consider ourselves fortunate to keep what they allow. That's why they look at the act of not taxing us on some activity becomes, what they call, a "tax expenditure", and allowing us to keep a portion of our money is viewed as "cuts in the tax code". They also believe that all income belongs to the Federal government, and any allowance for individuals to keep their money is called a “tax benefit” to we the people.
Capitalism has never failed in any country where it has been left alone without government intervention, and since ALL of the financial catastrophies which this country has endure since the creation of the Fed in 1913 can be laid at the feet of our politicians, and the overwhelming majority of those were Democrats, starting with FDR, Carter & Obama.
This is hands down one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen, ever. Anywhere.
That chart ends conveniently in 2007, there are a lot fewer in the 1% in this 0bama economy now, because we are all getting poorer.
The poor will always be poor. The income gap between the 1% and someone who has no job will continue to get much wider as incomes rise.
Let's say I own a hardware store, wouldn't you say my profit margin will remain fairly constant, no matter what happens to income levels at the top 1%? So how can I pay my employees $5-$10 more per hour, so they can keep up with the 1%? Where am I supposed to come up with all this extra cash?
The top 1% will not spend enough at your store to keep you in business. If the bottom 99% can no longer afford to buy from your store, you are out of business.
The income gap between the richest and poorest Americans grew last year to its largest margin ever, a stark divide as Democrats and Republicans spar over whether to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy.
Quote:
The top-earning 20 percent of Americans – those making more than $100,000 each year – received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent made by the bottom 20 percent of earners, those who fell below the poverty line, according to the new figures. That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968.
At the top, the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans, who earn more than $180,000, added slightly to their annual incomes last year, the data show. Families at the $50,000 median level slipped lower.
Only 20% of the income. The top 1% are GROSSLY overpaying, nearly TWICE the percentage of the income they earn.
If they were paying their "fair share," they'd only be paying 20% of America's federal income tax.
You are forgetting the fact that a lot of the super-rich make a LOT of income in long-term capital gains, dividends, and other forms of non-wage/salary income that are taxed at far LOWER rates than wages and salaries.
Also, many, many Americans who are not rich pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.
This is hands down one of the most ignorant posts I've ever seen, ever. Anywhere.
Really? What makes it so ignorant any more than your reply?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenSJC
You are forgetting the fact that a lot of the super-rich make a LOT of income in long-term capital gains, dividends, and other forms of non-wage/salary income that are taxed at far LOWER rates than wages and salaries.
Also, many, many Americans who are not rich pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.
Tell me how them earning long term capital gains changes the fact that they pay a higher percentage than the rest of society?
You are forgetting the fact that a lot of the super-rich make a LOT of income in long-term capital gains, dividends, and other forms of non-wage/salary income that are taxed at far LOWER rates than wages and salaries.
Doesn't matter, they're STILL collecting only 20% of the income.
If they were paying their "fair share," they'd only be paying 20% of America's federal income tax.
Quote:
Also, many, many Americans who are not rich pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.
...which is neither here nor there. Why shouldn't income earners pay payroll taxes for the federally mandated social insurance programs?
The idea is to get the windfall back that they enjoyed under Bush policies. I think a 600% tax is more appropriate.
I cant for a second take anyone seriously that believes that allowing people to keep their money = a "windfall"
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Lexus
ANY tax increase on the rich is better than the ridiculous Republican practice of reducing their taxes.
Why is taking money off people better than allowing people to keep it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Lexus
Enjoy President Obama's second term.
Keep dreaming. Half of american who are tired of being attacked by the President wont for a second vote for him. He campaigned on bringing the nation together, not dividing it!!
Last edited by pghquest; 11-07-2011 at 05:38 PM..
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.
