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.
"Liberals" means you have nothing informative to add.
It is that apologist mentality that created this mess. Somewhere along the line, America's conservatives became duped into believing rights were determined by your tax return. Somehow, this country has created a culture that idolizes the rich. There are two sets of rules in America; one for the 1% and one for the 99%.
It's amusing to see so many middle class and lower income conservatives defending the 1% to the death, when they rob you of benefits everyday. The rich want to strip this country of all social safety nets, social security, workers rights, and worker benefits. There is even massive campaigns to repeal minimum wage and lower regulations. Are we moving back in time, Republicans?
I did, you ignore them and haven't believed any of the facts. All you want to do is spout evil propaganda against the people who are successful. Stay angry and stay ignorant to the facts, it will guarantee you a shorter miserable life.
You have proven you know nothing of what you are talking about.
Interest rates are all artificial. They are set and manipulated by the Federal Reserve. Interest rates will remain low for the next ten years because our economy sucks.. we have demographic problems and demand problems. Demand will remain low as long as the 1% are robbing all the discretionary income from the 99%. So yes, interest rates will stay low for the next 10-20 years.
Quantitative Easing has been a help to the economy because we are in deflation.
It averted a double-dip recession and also, Obama has nothing to do with Quantitative Easing. Fiscal policy is controlled by the Federal Reserve.
Actually, you don't know what you are talking about.
#1 You dodged the primary point, that Democrats including Obama criticize Trickle Down policies while Obama has the largest trickle down policy ever in US history.
#3 Yes, the Fed is always manipulating interest rates. How does that make my statement that they are currently artificially lower than recent historic norms? How much and for how long can the FED perfectly manipulate the interest rates...
#4 It is a brainless excuse to apologize for Obama's failures and hypocrisy to say he has no control over the Fed. Could Obama not change the laws in concert with his congress that he controlled in the 1st two years to fire Bernanke as he started large QE under Obama. Did Obama not renominate Bernanke after he spoke in favor of QE? Did Obama just get to pick the new Fed Chair and he picked an easy money trickle down QE lady?
Do you have any integrity at all? No one can honestly say that Obama bares no responsibility of QE when he twice picked people who said they support the policy.
Obama supports trickle down.
Last edited by michiganmoon; 03-12-2014 at 04:56 AM..
Based on income share... The top 1% is paying about twice their fair share of Federal Income Tax (FIT).
The top 5-10% are paying their fair share of FIT.
The top 10-25% are slightly underpaying their fair share of FIT. The top 25-50%, the middle class, are paying only about half their fair share of FIT.
Table 1 at the link summarizes all the info, including income dollar amounts.
You, ErikBEggs, are either dangerously underinformed, deliberately misinformed, or BOTH. You are being used as a useful idiot.
Now, let's look at an example that shows how the top 1%'s federal income tax multiplier (because of the progressive federal income tax system) of 3.36 times the tax rate the middle class pays means the top 1% pays 47 times the amount of federal income tax the middle class pays while earning only 14 times as much:
For purposes of this example, let's assign the top 25-50%'s 7.0% average effective federal income tax rate reported by the IRS to an income of $55,000. The FIT paid would be $3,850.
Now let's apply the top 1%'s 23.50% tax rate to an income 14 times higher, $770,000. The tax paid would be $180,950.
180,950/3,850 is 47.
The second income earner would indeed be paying 47 times the tax the first earner paid, while earning only 14 times as much. The higher the income disparity, the more the multiplier amplifies it.
For example, if a 1%er earns 30 times a middle class income, the net result would yield 30 x 3.36 = 100.8 times more in income tax revenue than a middle class earner would pay.
Given those examples, you should be able to understand why it's in the government's best interest to artificially maintain as much of an income gap as possible, regardless of insincere pandering lip service to the contrary for votes (cough, Obama) : to maximize federal income tax revenue.
I can give you other examples of the dangers of over-dependence on any particular income group to pay a much higher share of the federal income tax than they should if you're interested in learning more about it. It's a dysfunctional system for a variety of reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikBEggs
The top 1% owns roughly 40% of the wealth, so the other 81.3% are supposed to be paid by the 60%? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
We pay a federal INCOME tax, not a wealth tax. Not too hard to figure out why that is... If wealth were taxed, everyone would be forced to pay a percentage of their net assets every year. That means the equity one has in one's house, all personal property, and all savings/401K's/pension plan value/etc. would be taxed every year until the government eventually strips it all away. Local governments come very close to doing that by assessing real estate taxes on senior citizens' homes. Many seniors are on limited fixed incomes and cannot afford to pay several thousands of dollars real estate tax bills every year.
Furthermore, income does not equal wealth. Read The Millionaire Next Door. 80% of those whose net worth is at least $1 million are first-generation wealthy. They rose from moderate means, made wise life and financial decisions, and didn't live beyond their means. The NY Times published the first chapter, here: The Millionaire Next Door
Conversely, there is no shortage of high-income earners who have such a low net worth that they declare bankruptcy. That happens every year. Trump has filed for bankruptcy 4 times.
How appropriate is this?
-------------
(CNSNews.com) – President Obama has characterized income inequality as “the defining challenge of our time,†prodding Republicans to come up with “concrete plans†to reduce it.
However, a new study by the Brookings Institute shows that the highest levels of income inequality in the U.S. are found in Democratic strongholds: the nation’s largest cities.
In his Dec. 4, 2013 speech, “Remarks on Economic Mobility,†Obama praised the New Deal and the War on Poverty for building “the largest middle class the world has ever known,†and lamented “a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility that has jeopardized middle-class America’s basic bargain – that if you work hard, you have a chance to get ahead.â€
The president challenged congressional Republicans to come up with “concrete plans that will actually reduce inequality, build the middle class, provide more ladders of opportunity to the poor.â€
But the highest levels of income inequality in the nation are in cities that voted overwhelmingly to reelect Obama in 2012
And, it turns out, the cities with the highest levels of income equality also happen to be the same places were Obama won some of his biggest victories in 2012.
“In 2012, Obama won 69.4 percent of the vote in cities with more than 500,000 people and 58.4% of the vote in cities with 50,000 to 500,000 people,†UrbanCincy reported. The final popular vote total across the nation was a lot closer: 51 percent for Obama, and 47 percent for Romney.
Atlanta, which Brookings says has the nation’s highest level of income inequality, is the ninth largest metropolitan area in the U.S. The City of Atlanta straddles two counties, and both went for Obama in a big way in 2012. Obama beat Romney in Fulton County 64.1 to 34.4 percent, and pulled in 77.6 percent of the vote in DeKalb County compared to Romney’s 20.9 percent.
Liberal policy always harms the poor and middle class the most, by design. It is no coincidence that the very wealthy have benefitted most from Obama's policies.
Poor ErikBEggs, he sounds so angry because he wants what they have.
He doesn't understand how he's been duped by politicians on both sides of the aisle, but particularly by Obama and other Dems who out of the one side of their mouths decry income inequality but then implement and/or maintain policies that enhance an ever growing income gap. My previous post explains why our elected federal government has a very strong incentive to maintain and expand an income gap: our progressive tax system maximizes FIT revenue only if the higher income earners continue to pull away from the masses.
President Obama is doing a very good job. I wouldn't say great but he's done a better job than the previous puppet-in-chief. Reading some of these moronic posts about President Obama is typical of the sore losers from the right.
Liberal policy always harms the poor and middle class the most, by design. It is no coincidence that the very wealthy have benefitted most from Obama's policies.
They should have voted for Romney, they'd be millionaires by now, at least that's what talk radio says.
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.
