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 10-18-2015, 12:03 PM
 
2,851 posts, read 3,475,383 times
Reputation: 1200

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1 View Post
Tell it to the big corporations.
Expand on this please?

Though I am against corporate cronyism I don't see a parallel between welfare and corporate tax breaks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2015, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,386 posts, read 35,546,439 times
Reputation: 14692
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Bernie won't save you. That article is about global wealth.
70% of all adults in the world have less than $10,000.

Third world poverty is overwhelming everyone.

Having $68K in wealth puts you in the top 10% globally.
Lots of Americans qualify for that with just their home equity and retirement accounts.
Woooo Hooo....I'm rich.

Actually, by global standards I am. It's sobering to remember that. We're lucky to have what we have. Many don't.

http://www.worldwealthcalculator.org/

According to the link above my income alone puts me in the top 2.5% and I don't even make $50k/year. When I was an engineer I was in the top 0.5%.

Last edited by Ivorytickler; 10-18-2015 at 12:09 PM.. Reason: to add link
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2015, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY 🇺🇸
36,754 posts, read 14,831,521 times
Reputation: 35584
The one thing it's not time for is that old, socialist fart.

The only hands my wealth should be in are my own--not yours, OP, or anyone else's, and surely not in the hands of confiscators and redistributionists like that old man.

Wake up, sheeple.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2015, 12:57 PM
 
Location: Central Ohio
10,834 posts, read 14,938,291 times
Reputation: 16587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
Nice straw man!

I am in the top 1%. It does not take much to be there and I am well aware of the enormous tax burden we have to pay.

I do not blame billionaires, the more the better, I would love to see a 1,000 more Bill gates in america since that would improve the economy.

My beef with the struggling middle class republicans that defend the top brackets. One would think these folks should be voting democrat since they benefit a lot from social programs.
And raising the top brackets would accomplish what, exactly?

Based upon the history of the last 75 years I can tell you one thing it would do is hurt the working middle class and almost certainly bring about a recession.

Let's examine the years of the high brackets, 1950 for example when anyone earning with an adjusted gross income of $1,905,344 (in constant 2013 dollars, had a 91.0% tax rate.

Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History
Inflation Adjusted (Real 2012 Dollars) Using Average Annual CPI During Tax Year
Income Years 1913-2013

Other than bringing orgasmic delight to liberals everywhere exactly what did it accomplish?

It didn't do anything, in fact it hurt revenue and stifled the economy.

The one number that should stick out is the percentage GDP that ended up in the treasury. That is the most telling number... raise tax rates 50% and expect an automatic 50% increase in revenue? Now that is the definition of stupid!



In 1950 the total revenue to the treasury was just 14.1% of GDP http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200 which doesn't look all that great when you consider total revenue to the treasury in 2013 was 16.7% of GDP.

Wouldn't you think if the tax rate was 47% or higher on anyone with an adjusted gross income of $150,000 or more would obviously result in higher revenue to the treasury?

Of course you would but numbers just don't bear that out at all.

One thing the left doesn't take into account is human nature.

If I own a successful business what do you suppose I am going to do once I hit the 75% tax bracket by making $500,000? Tell you one thing I wouldn't do and that is continue to work and invest. If I am earning $500,000 do you think I am stupid? You honestly think anyone who earns that kind of money is stupid?

If I am not going to be paid then I am not working, how about that?

I tell you who is stupid and that is the people who think they can tax me at a 91% rate and that won't change my strategy or cause me to work just as hard risking just as much for no return.

In 1981 the country was in horrible shape with hideous unemployment rates and an inflation rate that would knock your socks off.

What Reagan did was lower the tax rate and offer business income tax credits on purchasing new equipment like work trucks (I bought three new work trucks in two months) which caused huge pickups in auto manufacturing. I hired more people and inside of three years the only people without jobs were those who didn't want to work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
If you want to be like a lion or a Zebra in the wild be my guest, but you will live a life of stress in the name of your so-called freedom which is not really freedom. You do not know what real freedom is!
Freedom as in freedom from work and freedom of not having to have a job?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2015, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Dallas
31,290 posts, read 20,744,889 times
Reputation: 9325
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
It's a generalization but I do. When I was growing up few of my friends parents went to collage. They worked in factories....Fisher Body, G.M., Cleveland Crane, TRW, all jobs that are gone now.
That's not unskilled. You said unskilled could buy a home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2015, 04:52 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,210,872 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
That's not unskilled. You said unskilled could buy a home.
They had no skills outside of being able to fill out an application when hired. No the unemployed couldn't buy homes.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:44 PM.

© 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