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 rich are taxed to PAY FOR ALL THE EXPENDITURES found in the Federal budget, not just aid to the poor! Sheesh!
No, we all are taxed to pay for all expenditures, even though by & large the only ones that benefit from these expenditures are the wealthy & the poor.
The poor get welfare & the rich get bailouts.
The working man gets hammered. Great system eh.
This is hardly true. The top 10% of earners pay 68% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of earners pay a mere 3% of the taxes! You think that is "fair"? The wealthy should pay even more? The facts seem to show that the wealthy currently pay most of the taxes and benefit the least from government programs.
Did you know that there was a 70% top tax bracket about 50 years ago? I think you're smoking something! READ!
Wow. Just out of curiosity, where do you get that information? I'd like to READ a little more about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParkTwain
The rich are taxed to PAY FOR ALL THE EXPENDITURES found in the Federal budget, not just aid to the poor! Sheesh!
Yes we know that, obviously.
The issue that has been debated in this thread, repeatedly, is that the "RICH" should PAY MORE TAXES, percentage-wise, because of the claim that they DESERVE to. And of course, the MORE the "RICH" pay, the LESS the "OTHERS" pay. So we are not talking about just aiding the poor, we are talking about how the tax burden should be distributed.
I should have posted it initially, but I wanted people to actually look and I know they don't click on links.
Okay, I've looked over that, and the data does come from a valid federal government source (the Census Bureau). And I was in the wrong before when I said that the income distribution stayed exactly the same between 1967 and 2003. They distribution has shifted, though not drastically. The data:
Page 36, Table A-3 "Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion"
50th percentile (median)--
41 years ago (1967): $33,338
5 years ago (2003): $43,318
Factor of increase: ~1.3x
95th percentile (top 5% of the population)--
41 years ago (1967): $88,678
5 years ago (2003): $154,120
Factor of increase: ~1.74x
(A) The explanation for the slight shift in income distribution is very simple, and doesn't involve any conspiracy amongst the rich to keep money away from the poor (or smoky back rooms, or black helicopters, or men in black suits with dark sunglasses and tasers and secret underground interrogation rooms and truth serum). In 1967, the majority of the workforce (25-60 year olds) was born between 1907 and 1942, and a substantial percentage of them were 1st-generation European immigrants. In 2003, by comparison, the majority of the workforce was born between 1943 and 1978, and consisted in vast majority of native-born Americans.
For the second group (born-here Americans, born between 1943 and 1978), it was a LOT more common to have a college education than the first group (immigrants and born-here Americans, born between 1907 and 1942).
The college educated earn more than the non-college-educated...so it makes sense that a group with a higher percentage of college graduates would earn more. That's sort of the whole point of going to college, ain't it?
(B) It's all irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is: levying exorbitant taxes on the wealthy to benefit the not-so-wealthy and the non-workers.
For so long as taxes are high enough to pay for what it's the federal government's role to provide (national defense, K-12 education, paving the interstate highways, etc.) -- and taxing everyone at 5% would MORE than pay for this, to say nothing of the current taxes which are WAY higher and are paying for needless pork and tons of crap like Welfare -- then there's no valid justification for saying we MUST have higher taxes; it's a "want" thing, not "need thing".
This is hardly true. The top 10% of earners pay 68% of the taxes. The bottom 50% of earners pay a mere 3% of the taxes! You think that is "fair"? The wealthy should pay even more? The facts seem to show that the wealthy currently pay most of the taxes and benefit the least from government programs.
Absolutely correct on the above.
"Capping" salaries makes for a dangerous prescedent. Performing and succeeding is great incentive and reflective of what makes "true" capitalism so great and necessary in our society. This 250,000 cap is ridicuous as it ties a noose around the neck. Unless a person has owned and operated a business for any great length of time, they likely wouldn't understand this.
Okay, I've looked over that, and the data does come from a valid federal government source (the Census Bureau). And I was in the wrong before when I said that the income distribution stayed exactly the same between 1967 and 2003. They distribution has shifted, though not drastically. The data:
Page 36, Table A-3 "Selected Measures of Household Income Dispersion"
50th percentile (median)--
41 years ago (1967): $33,338
5 years ago (2003): $43,318
Factor of increase: ~1.3x
95th percentile (top 5% of the population)--
41 years ago (1967): $88,678
5 years ago (2003): $154,120
Factor of increase: ~1.74x
(A) The explanation for the slight shift in income distribution is very simple, and doesn't involve any conspiracy amongst the rich to keep money away from the poor (or smoky back rooms, or black helicopters, or men in black suits with dark sunglasses and tasers and secret underground interrogation rooms and truth serum). In 1967, the majority of the workforce (25-60 year olds) was born between 1907 and 1942, and a substantial percentage of them were 1st-generation European immigrants. In 2003, by comparison, the majority of the workforce was born between 1943 and 1978, and consisted in vast majority of native-born Americans.
For the second group (born-here Americans, born between 1943 and 1978), it was a LOT more common to have a college education than the first group (immigrants and born-here Americans, born between 1907 and 1942).
The college educated earn more than the non-college-educated...so it makes sense that a group with a higher percentage of college graduates would earn more. That's sort of the whole point of going to college, ain't it?
(B) It's all irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is: levying exorbitant taxes on the wealthy to benefit the not-so-wealthy and the non-workers.
For so long as taxes are high enough to pay for what it's the federal government's role to provide (national defense, K-12 education, paving the interstate highways, etc.) -- and taxing everyone at 5% would MORE than pay for this, to say nothing of the current taxes which are WAY higher and are paying for needless pork and tons of crap like Welfare -- then there's no valid justification for saying we MUST have higher taxes; it's a "want" thing, not "need thing".
Exactly...and let me take this one step farther...the GAP that a lot of liberals are missing is the pure FACT that those who are considered "rich" by democrats are people who make over $250k a year and work their butts off for it.
When you want to tax the "rich" you're talking about taxing me and my family where my huband works a minimum of 60 hours per week - holidays included. He has no sick time and no holiday vacations (president's day, Columbus day, 4th of July, CHRISTMAS, ThanksGIVING,etc) . He goes to work sick as a dog b/c he HAS to. He doesn't belong to a union, noone but "us" contributes to our retirement or our medical coverage.
Noone but the two of US paid for grad COLLEGE LOANS we took out b/c we knew that was one way to not end up in a trailer park.
So cry me a river when you live in the USA and can get yourself out of any hole you put yourself into. It's not like you live in France and once you get on your feet and start doing well for yourself you get smacked down in order to take care of those around you who sit around all day and smoke/drink.
I didn't have kids until I was 30. Until I could PROVIDE for that first baby. And I didn't throw in two more kids until I KNEW I could PROVIDE for them too.
Personal responsibility...and I don't think anyone really deserves to make $30 million dollars a year in a salary...but understand that Obama and the liberal party clumps those $30 million a year right in with those who work their arses off for $250 and little over.
That's not fair and not what the "American Dream" ever was or is about. The streets were paved with gold...if you could trouble yourself long enough to bend your arse over to pick it up.
First of all don't talk to me as if I am using any form of public aid okay? I pay tax too. Also, you're using all the following examples; paying for multiple kids college, paying for their weddings, owning a home in an area with hugely inflated property values, sending your kids to private schools, financing what will most likely be a comfy retirement, paying for insurance, providing your kids a "great" life, etc as reasons why your "meager" income of 250k+ a year isn't all that much. Gimme a break, look at the value of your home and your income, now look at areas in 90% of the rest of the country and see what that kinda income pays for and then proceed to "shut it".
I have no clue how you thought I was suggesting you live off of public aid.
Why should I give you a break when I see how LITTLE a $250K income gets you in the state I live in?
Who said I'm comfy? I made choices (buying a house and all that comes with keeping it up and having kids). Noone forced me to. Having made those choices I am obligated to provided for them. Not you or anyone else.
I have 3 boys. I don't buy into the "girl" having her family fork over the entire cost of a wedding. My kids will be getting married too and HIS family will be just as big a part of that day she may think is all hers. A few tuxedos and a "rehearsal night dinner" is all I should pay for? I don't think so.
If I should sell my house today, where am I going to go? It wouldn't even be a lateral move. To keep my same mortgage I'd have to buy a dump and stick $200K + in to it to get it up to the standard I live in now.
Sorry you don't get it - I would love to live in a state where $250k+ in income means your rich as heck.
"Capping" salaries makes for a dangerous precedent. Performing and succeeding is great incentive
Exactly. No one likes work, everyone likes reward -- reward is what makes the work worthwhile, it's the sole motivation to do the work. If you take away the reward, what would be the point of doing the work? If I knew that by working harder and earning more, I'd get less -- well heck, I wouldn't work that hard. I'd slack off and earn less so as to keep more of what I work for. ANYONE would. And then you don't have people with $250+ incomes (of which there are hundreds of thousands in the USA right now), which means fewer tax revenues -- which means one of two things happen: (1) cut out all the ridiculous spending that you suddenly can't afford [i.e. Welfare], or (2) you declare someone earning $30,000 per year "rich" and tax them at 50%. Hark, I think Obama just got a hard-on!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyG
So cry me a river when you live in the USA and can get yourself out of any hole you put yourself into. It's not like you live in France and once you get on your feet and start doing well for yourself you get smacked down in order to take care of those around you who sit around all day and smoke/drink.
Bingo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyG
That's not fair and not what the "American Dream" ever was or is about.
There's a reason that millions of folks immigrated here from Europe -- there was OPPORTUNITY here, unlike where they came from...opportunity to get a job and have something to show for it, to have a ladder you could work your way up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyG
The streets were paved with gold...if you could trouble yourself long enough to bend your arse over to pick it up.
"The New Europe...reminding you why your ancestors left the Old Europe"
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.
