Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-02-2012, 09:06 AM
 
Location: Asheville
1,160 posts, read 4,245,749 times
Reputation: 1215

Advertisements

Don't know if this just belongs in politics, so I'll post this same post in three places:

I did some research, and saw and have heard that in Eisenhower's time the top one percent earners paid 50 percent tax. Since then, it has steadily dropped. So, I did some math. I looked at how much top one percent pay in taxes, which is about 20 percent, and this winds up (from figures in millions) to be $400 billion altogether for a year. But let's say for a couple years they paid 50 percent tax, especially if the Republicans are so gall-dang worried about this thing called debt that pretty much everyone who pays bills knows what it means, then the revenue going into the Treasury would be $1 trillion x 2 years = $2 trillion. That would pay off the debt, deficit, and a super max McDonald's hamburger dinner for four poor people for the rest of their lives. Anyone want to correct me? Should I send it to some group who specializes in teaching truth to money mongers? Keep in mind, after the two trillion goes out the window, the top one percent KEEP two trill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-02-2012, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,481,831 times
Reputation: 27720
So you would support a 50% tax on people making $200K year ?
Those people have also been defined as rich now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,889,092 times
Reputation: 11259
I want free stuff! Tax everyone but me to pay for it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Asheville
1,160 posts, read 4,245,749 times
Reputation: 1215
TEXAN, the top ONE PERCENT, as I said in my post, make an estimated average of one trillion dollars.

WHO'S ON FIRST, I wanna be on second.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,620 posts, read 28,282,339 times
Reputation: 11416
//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...-40-taxes.html

Well, which is it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 09:35 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,006 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13709
Quote:
Originally Posted by gigimac View Post
TEXAN, the top ONE PERCENT, as I said in my post, make an estimated average of one trillion dollars.
I understand the thought process, but the top 5-50% make an estimated $4.5 trillion. THAT'S where the bulk of the income is. We need to tax THAT if we're really serious about increasing income tax revenue. Just taxing the top 1%'s measly $1 trillion is just a class warfare teeny tiny drop in the bucket "I'm jealous of your success so I'm going to tax you" tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 09:41 AM
 
Location: it depends
6,369 posts, read 6,408,962 times
Reputation: 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by gigimac View Post
TEXAN, the top ONE PERCENT, as I said in my post, make an estimated average of one trillion dollars.

WHO'S ON FIRST, I wanna be on second.
It's socially acceptable to be mathematically illiterate. It may not be wise to advertise it.

Not one person in the history of the world has ever made $1 trillion of income in a year (or even a lifetime.) In fact, not one person in the history of the world has ever accumulated $1 trillion in net worth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 09:44 AM
 
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
744 posts, read 1,091,552 times
Reputation: 871
Dwight Eisenhower would be considered a left-wing communist by today's GOP teabaggers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 09:48 AM
 
12,772 posts, read 7,977,382 times
Reputation: 4332
Quote:
Originally Posted by gigimac View Post
Don't know if this just belongs in politics, so I'll post this same post in three places:

I did some research, and saw and have heard that in Eisenhower's time the top one percent earners paid 50 percent tax. Since then, it has steadily dropped. So, I did some math. I looked at how much top one percent pay in taxes, which is about 20 percent, and this winds up (from figures in millions) to be $400 billion altogether for a year. But let's say for a couple years they paid 50 percent tax, especially if the Republicans are so gall-dang worried about this thing called debt that pretty much everyone who pays bills knows what it means, then the revenue going into the Treasury would be $1 trillion x 2 years = $2 trillion. That would pay off the debt, deficit, and a super max McDonald's hamburger dinner for four poor people for the rest of their lives. Anyone want to correct me? Should I send it to some group who specializes in teaching truth to money mongers? Keep in mind, after the two trillion goes out the window, the top one percent KEEP two trill.
If you want to advocate for stealing 50% of someone's income, you could at least show some facts and sources to support your claims before you ask for people to correct you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 09:52 AM
 
Location: WY
6,262 posts, read 5,070,063 times
Reputation: 7998
Sick and tired of this "fair share" crap.

Taxing the rich (which will become a constantly moving target and will continue to be redefined as the government needs more and more money) will not get us out of the mess we are mired in.

Using the terms "fair share" and "fair shot" doesn't change the fact that we are trying to squeeze those who HAVE money, to pay for those who wants us to GIVE them our money. Taking from someone to give to someone else is the very definition of redistribution.

"Skin in the game" is another term bandied around freely. If everybody has to pay their fair share then EVERYBODY has to pay something - those with little should also contribute something. Even a little because they can only afford a little.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:14 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top