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.
This man is so superior to anything coming from the other side. He is absolutely correct here, no question. To hell with the rich and their rich-only supporting agenda. Because they unfairly benefited from the Bush tax cuts, it's only fitting POST-BUSH that they pay more than their fair share to compensate for the wrong.
Great to have someone of intelligence and effectiveness in the White House after 8 years of the village idiot.
When in the hell will you people tell me what that fair share the rich owe is? I really wonder what that number will be. What is their fair share? Just something that Obama put over on you?
When in the hell will you people tell me what that fair share the rich owe is? I really wonder what that number will be. What is their fair share? Just something that Obama put over on you?
what rate of income tax does someone earning over 50 k pay income tax
in ireland the marginal rate of tax is 52% on those earning over 40 k euro
actually its 42% but if your an employer you also pay prsi and a bunch of other levies which brings it up to 52%
Obama's plan is to make the tax cuts permanent for those making under $250,000 a year, and restoring them only to those making more or the top 2%.
Not only that, Obama and the democrats fight to preserve your social security and medicare. If you keep on supporting the GOP, you better have one heck of a retirement plan and/or savings or else you will be in a big heap of trouble.
Just how hard are the Dems fighting to keep Social Security around? I only see them refusing to do what needs to be done instead of doing anything to hurt their "baby". I keep hearing that crap from people like you but never see anything to prove what you are saying.
Which means 66% of the tax cuts didn't. And what percentage of the income tax does the 1% pay? Well most of it, of course.
It means that 1% got 30% and the other 99% shared 70% and the whole nation got deficits. In other words, we made the tax code less progressive and ran up debt. Now, the GOP solution (Ryan Plan) is to lower taxes on the rich more, increase taxes on the poor (they Orwellianly call it "broadening the base"), cutting deductions of the middle class (mortgage deduction) and slashing federal programs.
It's far better just to undo the tax-cuts that got us into this mess instead of perpetuating the privileged tax status of the rich.
There is a saying, "statistics do not lie but liars use statistics." Allowing all the tax-cuts to expire adds $2.3 trillion to the Treasury over 10 years. Only allowing the rate for the top 1% top to expire brings in $700 billion.
That means that a third of the tax-cuts went to 1% of the taxpayers. Moreover, while the average tax-payer got a few hundred dollars off, the average millionaire got over $100,000.
On top of all that, the stated goal of the tax-cuts was never achieved. These tax-cuts were first envisioned in Bush's 1999 campaign as a way of returning the surplus to the people. It ended up creating huge deficits.
The 2003 tax-cuts were sold as a jobs program to create 5 million jobs. It failed at that but did succeed at creating more income inequality.
I am for allowing all the tax-cuts to expire, even though it means my taxes will rise. The government simply needs the revenue and the Clinton tax-rates were not that high to begin with. What should be done is index the 1998 $250,000 to what that is today. I estimate it's about $395,000. A better plan is to have many narrow marginal rates, perhaps 15 or 20, to make the tax code more progressive. Good luck getting sensible reform through this Congress. If Obama is for it, the GOP is against it.
The very true fact is that we tax our rich too little. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that economic activity is hampered by taxes that are below confiscatory levels -- none.
I think that somewhere in that pile of Pelosi you just tried to stack on us there is an indication of what the fair share of the rich is but I just can't dig it out. Could you just state what that fair share is in English?
It means that 1% got 30% and the other 99% shared 70% and the whole nation got deficits. In other words, we made the tax code less progressive and ran up debt. Now, the GOP solution (Ryan Plan) is to lower taxes on the rich more, increase taxes on the poor (they Orwellianly call it "broadening the base"), cutting deductions of the middle class (mortgage deduction) and slashing federal programs.
It's far better just to undo the tax-cuts that got us into this mess instead of perpetuating the privileged tax status of the rich.
In other words Congress raised their spending level when the should have been lowering it. The problem has never been revenue. The problem has always been spending. You can control spending, you cannot control revenue.
liberals only want to use percentages when it suits them
i dont regard myself as a liberal but IMO , the wealthy pay a low rate of tax in the usa
capital gains is something like 15% , in ireland its 30% , in the uk its 35% and in germany and france its 40% , wall st have it good under both parties
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.
