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 poster backtracked when info was posted that the top 5% pays WAY more than their fair share of the federal income tax, in direct contradiction to what the poster thought was true.
The poster didn't. And I don't see the idea of fair share with an established definition either. The idea you continue to lug on to, that so-much is equal to so-much was amusing the first time around, it is downright ridiculous since.
That is because its a tax on labor and most wealth gained by the 1% is not by direct payment to labor.
Not true. It it were, their effective federal income tax would be less than 15% to reflect the impact of the capital gains rate. It isn't. It's more than 24%.
The poster didn't. And I don't see the idea of fair share with an established definition either. The idea you continue to lug on to, that so-much is equal to so-much was amusing the first time around, it is downright ridiculous since.
Ooops, more Ghostly ignorance. How does one lug on to an idea? Once can lug something around, or glom onto something, but nobody ever lug's onto something.
When you're asked about something, your response should entail more than calling the person ignorant. So, try again.
Yout stated that you aren't ignorant and then have to ask somebody about when a well-known tax construct came to be. Mutually-exclusive conditions, Mate.
So does that mean there won't be any EinsteinsGhost Jr.s
And what has that got to do with facts within US and State constitutions? But, since you ask about EinsteinsGhost Jr(s), like I said, worry about self... if there can be Robin Rossi Jr(s), anything is possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Rossi
Ooops, more Ghostly ignorance. How does one lug on to an idea? Once can lug something around, or glom onto something, but nobody ever lug's onto something.
My bad. You're a "conservative", right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Rossi
Yout stated that you aren't ignorant and then have to ask somebody about when a well-known tax construct came to be. Mutually-exclusive conditions, Mate.
Well, you're among the resident geniuses, who is now wanting to run and hide instead of dealing with the realities. So, any luck yet?
You do realize that the bottom 99% actually earn most of the income, right?
That's why increasing income taxes on only the so-called "rich" will have such little impact. They earn only a small percentage of the income.
Really?
"The richest 1 percent of the U.S. population went from just over 9% of U.S. national income in 1974 to 23.5% in 2007, with average incomes rising from $337,100 to $1.2 million. (All these figures are in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars.) The only time on record (that is, since 1913) that this share was higher was in 1928, just prior to the Great Depression."
These two graphs have a striking inverse relationship to each other.
What is fair is what is good for everyone. A high top marginal tax rate tends to get you a low total debt in % GDP. Low total debt is good for everyone.
And what people take for a given called a ground rent.
A piece of property is a government granted monopoly. You purchase the deed that is enforced by the state giving exclusive access. It allows you the owner to charge someone who wants to use it as an access charge. People get sort of confused when the user is themselves, but the ground rent remains.
Amazing that people realize bridges and roads create toll booth incomes, if the government let it, but the site next to the road or bridge seemingly is not.
What is even worse is the joke is on us since land values are just turned into mortgages and interest rates.
When government, on our behalf, invests in infrastructure, amazing things happen. Land values rise. If you are in the New York metro area, think of the Verrazanno Narrows Bridge, which connects Brooklyn and Staten Island, and of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which connects Westchester and Rockland Counties. In each case, federal dollars produced huge windfalls for local landholders. If an infrastructure project is worth doing, it will produce increases in land values that exceed its cost.
Real estate investors love to tax capital and income to build infrastructure which enriches their government granted monopoly. They hate real estate taxes to pay for their gains. Its California to a T. The land owners voted for all sorts of amenities and goodies and froze their real estate taxes at the same time. That is why many people are wealthy from California, but there are records of poor people in a state that is broke.
The rich leaches make money from other people's work paying income and sales taxes to build infrastructure while boosting their land values.
I wish this was new but its just the 1st and 2nd estate against the 3rd estate all over again. The rich with land and money have a toll booth economy to steal from the 3rd estate.
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.
