It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wouldn't Federal Tax Cuts to the wealthy really be a welfare benefit aimed at the wrong demographic

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Explanation: Seriously!
Is this what they ment by trickle down eCONomics???


Personal Disclosure:
The US economy seems to be like a bad comic CONvention of cape and masked dastardly villans and cads! Where are these so called super hero's I ask you?




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   
i don't think the really wealthy will even notice the tax cut unless their accountants tell them the amount they're saving. wealthy businessmen are to busy trying to figure out every loophole known to modern ecomonics to avoid paying taxes.

what a joke, giving tax breaks to a tax bracket that has the system so figured out that the government is lucky if a wealthy citizen declares and pays more that 3% income tax.

welcome to the united suckers of america.


edit on 11-12-2010 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Yea,welfare for the rich. A break for those that have a boat and a house for every child the second they turn 18.
The republican party is a trickle down party,and think about If you let water drip down hot rocks in the summer,not a drop is going to make it to the rocks on the bottom.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
nah. you guys are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base.

you need to take a look at federal tax rates across different income levels.

Lowest quintile 4.2 %
Second quintile 10.2 %
Middle quintile 14.2 %
Fourth quintile 17.6 %
Highest quintile 25.8 %
Top 10 percent 27.5 %
Top 5 percent 29 %
Top 1 percent 31.2 %

in the above, you see that the people in the upper quintile pay significantly more than those in the lower areas of the distribution. they carry the biggest burden for taxes, so it it logical that a "break" would occur.

i wonder constantly why it cant be fairer across the board. why shouldn't everyone pay the same rate regardless of income? the answer i come to is that people like barack obama and the liberal/statists dont care about what is fair and equitable, they care about redistributing wealth.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 

Explanation: You can't fool OL... I'm already stupid! Go try fool somebody who is actually smart for a challange!


Here is why... [note back of the envelope equation I did recently thta is slightly inaccurate but well within the ballpark of acceptable figures etc. ]


330,000,000 population of which 1/3rd are the working earning population = 110,000,000

$550,000,000,000 /annum earned in total by 2% of american workers earning $250,000/yr

$440,000,000,000 /annum earned in total by 20% of american workers earning $20,000/yr

$4,310,000,000,000 /annum earned in total by 78% of american workers earning $50,000/yr

$5,250,000,000,000 /annum earned in total by 100% of american workers.

So, 2% possess 10.1% of the cash. 20% possess 8.9% of the cash. 78% possess 81% of the cash. ... available in any 1yr.


B.Bernanke's $600 Billion U$D Bail-out Blow-out! Back of the envelope deconstruction! (by OmegaLogos) [ATS Deconstructing Disinformation forum]

So ... 2% earn 12.5 x more than the lowest earning 20% who pay more tax [its this easy ... multiply by 10 what the lowest 20% earn and do the same with the % in tax they pay... Hmmm $200K per yr [which is still less than the $250K the rich earn] and OMFG 42%
:shk:


Personal Disclosure: Yes I am Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay of Base! Its called Safe! Home Run!



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
nah. you guys are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base.

you need to take a look at federal tax rates across different income levels.

Lowest quintile 4.2 %
Second quintile 10.2 %
Middle quintile 14.2 %
Fourth quintile 17.6 %
Highest quintile 25.8 %
Top 10 percent 27.5 %
Top 5 percent 29 %
Top 1 percent 31.2 %

in the above, you see that the people in the upper quintile pay significantly more than those in the lower areas of the distribution. they carry the biggest burden for taxes, so it it logical that a "break" would occur.

i wonder constantly why it cant be fairer across the board. why shouldn't everyone pay the same rate regardless of income? the answer i come to is that people like barack obama and the liberal/statists dont care about what is fair and equitable, they care about redistributing wealth.



What about how the corporations used to carry the majority of the burden? They only started taxing us this heavily after backing off of corporations. I say let's give them (corporations) their taxes back, cut income taxes, and that coupled with some protectionist policies and good labor/manufacturing investments will start to turn the boat around.

The problem is it requires both cons and libs to make concessions. Or maybe that's someone's solution. Keep the two halves fighting so nothing changes.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


im not sure of your point, here.
------------------------------------------------------

with regards to corporations, it is a great big red herring that "corporations" get tax breaks. How can you tax a fictional entity?

it is not income until it is disbursed to a human being. corporations don't pay taxes...people pay taxes. salaries, bonuses, perks, etc. arent paid to corporations, so corporations for all practical purposes don't pay anything but titular amounts.

anyway, the point still stands that there is a contingent of people out there that are engaged in heated class warfare...."soak the rich!!! who are they to have all that money?!!!"

it is classic marxism and statism.




posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
EDIT: Replied to a specific post erroneously.

Corporations are not taxed in the same manner. Most believe they are given a pass when politicians and the media make their disingenuous remarks such as "XYZ Corp. paid no income tax this year". While true, it plays on the fact that the majority of the people really have no clue to the tax structure.

Here is a prime example of the above stated: Bernie Sanders claims EXXON pays no income tax

A business has many structures in which it can form. A large majority of smaller businesses are sole-proprietorships or partnerships. They pay their business taxes as personal income and thus fall under the Federal Income tax structure. Corporations do not. Because of the structure, a corporation is taxed on its sales (business income) rather than the personal income of those that are employed within the corporation.

This site does a fairly better job at explaining: C Corporation (It is good to note that this is specific to a C Corporation. Our complex tax structure created by our wonderful representatives includes much more than this simple explanation.)

The main point is to understand that the first article I linked above illustrates how politicians either willfully make false claims knowing the public will be enraged by it or they are just as ignorant as the rest of us on how a corporation is taxed.


Still, while focusing on the negative-$156 million figure and saying that the company "paid zero in taxes" in 2009 was eye-catching, it is, at best, misleading. And it ignores the fact that the company paid hundreds of millions in state income taxes, sales taxes and other types of taxes. We can't verify the company's claim that its net tax was $500 million in 2009, but it's incorrect for Sanders to say "paid zero in taxes." We rate his claim False.
- Source is the above sourced article.
edit on 11-12-2010 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by MMPI2
 


Its not marxism, its based on mainstream economic theory which is actually exactly opposed to marxism and labor (objectivist) theory of value - subjective theory of value (marginalism). See here .
Marxist economic theory says that value of goods is based on the labor needed to produce them, is objective, universal and does not depend on the demand much.
On the other hand, market capitalism says that goods have different values for different people, and subjective value or demand (demand/supply ratio) is the main force setting their prizes (marginal utility). That means that for example taking 10% of income from someone who earns x is far bigger hit (loss of value, cost) for him than taking 10% of income from someone who earns 5x. From this follows than if we want to spread the given tax burden so that everyone carries cca the same loss of REAL individually subjective loss of marginal value, we have to use reasonable progressive taxation. Otherwise we are hurting middle and mid-lower class with higher marginal taxation than the rich.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


Technically speaking, there are no tax cuts up for vote. This would be an extension of the current tax structure. But the media and the politicians (on both sides) like to make these erroneous claims because people will clamp down on them.

To the Dems (mostly) this is a vote to cut taxes. False. This is a vote to extend the current law or make it permanent.

To the Repubs (mostly) this is a vote to raise taxes. False. This is a vote to extend the current law or make it permanent.

Class warfare and Wealth envy at its greatest.

NOTE: With the current bill, there will be amendments that raise or cut taxes. But the fact remains that those are additions after the fact.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Does that take into account all the tax loopholes the top 1-10% can use?


Originally posted by MMPI2
nah. you guys are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off base.

you need to take a look at federal tax rates across different income levels.

Lowest quintile 4.2 %
Second quintile 10.2 %
Middle quintile 14.2 %
Fourth quintile 17.6 %
Highest quintile 25.8 %
Top 10 percent 27.5 %
Top 5 percent 29 %
Top 1 percent 31.2 %

edit on 11-12-2010 by v1rtu0s0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by MMPI2
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


im not sure of your point, here.
------------------------------------------------------

with regards to corporations, it is a great big red herring that "corporations" get tax breaks. How can you tax a fictional entity?

it is not income until it is disbursed to a human being. corporations don't pay taxes...people pay taxes. salaries, bonuses, perks, etc. arent paid to corporations, so corporations for all practical purposes don't pay anything but titular amounts.

anyway, the point still stands that there is a contingent of people out there that are engaged in heated class warfare...."soak the rich!!! who are they to have all that money?!!!"

it is classic marxism and statism.



One word: tariffs. Tariffs ensure a stable work force within a countries borders by discouraging foreign imports. We used to impose very high tariffs, now they're practically nothing. Everyone can get on board with this one, except those that a big fans of GATT, WTO, NAFTA, etc. Most people realize the damage done there.

Ok, a few more: Maximum wage laws. These used to ensure that bonuses were handed out to the common worker. Christmas bonus, anyone? Gone are those days. No incentive to reinvest in the business and your employees when you can gorge yourself on the corporate profit now instead.

Pay raises? Not keeping up with inflation, if they even happen at all. We see frozen wages even as company heads still report record profits and give themselves the majority of the bonuses. Because it's allowed now. It didn't used to be.

Some version of a maximum wage law was in effect until 1980, when the top tax rate slid down to 28 percent. A shift that is now understood to have been one of the prime contributors to the mortgage meltdown and other market failures. It's not stable or sustainable.

It's time to clean up and move on.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 


Does it take into account that the combined bottom ~50% has a negative tax rate?

Source



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by PeasantRebellion
 


Corporations are not taxed in the same manner.


Totally understood. I'm not saying what you thought I was, I think.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by OmegaLogos
 


A flat tax on consumption would be the most fair tax. The more you consume, the more you pay. I believe everyone in this country is overtaxed to pay for needless infrastructure, wars and unneeded services. Minimize the Fed and tax accordingly. The IRS it the law of the land.....bring up the word IRS and people shudder.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
As Leona Helmsley said...."only the little people pay taxes"

More true today than ever before!

blogs.wsj.com...



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by lostviking
 


While it would be, there would have to a Constitutional amendment to abolish the Income tax and the IRS to make a consumption tax possible. Otherwise politicians will just saddle it on top of the income tax.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
You know, we debate all the time about the best way to go about doing this or that. One of my biggest worries is that it's way too late to do any reigning in. It seems like reset is going to be the only doable solution.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
The Obama administration considers anyone who makes over 250,000/yr rich and does not want to give them a tax break right?
The problem with this logic is that these 'rich' people are running small businesses which employ most americans.
These people don't have 250,000/yr profits. It's all tied up into the business. If you don't reduce the tax burden either the price of the products which you buy will increase or they must fire people from the payroll.

Most of you here must stop with this class warfare garbage. Rich people are not the enemy. Have you ever got a job from a poor person? Large portions of rich people were once poor and sacrificed everything to start their own business. Now that they have been successful and employing people, you want to ruin everything by taxing them to death. Your logic is totally backwards.



posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Taxing the wealthy does not benefit us, the little people. Anyone thinking that the "millionaires" are going to pick up the tab while the rest of us on the brink of poverty are going to get a pass is crazy!!

No matter how much money you give the government, they will spend more. Since WWII, every additional $1 gained in new taxes was spent by the government at a rate of $1.17 on average. Yes, you read that right. For every $1 they got, the government spent, on average, an additional $.17. Now before you say -- the millionaires can afford it, read on. Just to clarify, these are new taxes since it is not money that the government currently has factored in to their budget.

The number of wealthy in this country -- those obtaining wealth for the first time -- is not growing fast enough to keep up with the government's spending. Now, couple that with other methods to which the rich can reduce their reportable income and you are already looking at a massive deficit being built.

So what happens when the rich aren't getting richer? We lose even more jobs and they spend even less money and the economy gets even worse. And what about that deficit I mentioned above? The government then passes on additional taxes to the rest of us in order to cover the amount they overspent from above and we are told not to complain since we got "a break" the last time around. Doesn't this sound familiar to anybody else?

I said this in another thread, but it pertains here as well. When is the last time a poor person offered you a job? How many people on this site work for a company owned by somebody with less money than you?

Yes, there have been tax cuts for the last ten years or so and no, employment has not picked up. However, unfortunately, the rich are the only ones in the position of actually hiring people. Not everybody unemployed can simply become an entrepreneur. There are not enough of us left to support it.

Further, the wealthy are the ones most capable of spending money. As much as it rightfully bothers people to see the rich buy their second and third home when others can't afford one -- it doesn't matter. We need them to buy those houses. We need them to continue to spend lavishly and to invest even more in businesses and hiring.

One thing's for certain: Take more money away from the wealthy, or anybody else right now, and give it to the government and we will never see it back in the economy. Rather, the government will spend this new influx of money faster than the amount of time it took to write this post. Keep in mind, they are cutting spending. Or at least pretending to want to cut spending. Any increase in tax revenue will offset the spending so that they can claim spending went down when really it didn't.

And before anybody jumps on the "you must be rich" bandwagon, I'm not. And I can certainly think of a lot of good that millionaires can do with their expendable cash budgets. But that's not for me to decide.

I do however know that nothing good comes from giving the government more and more money when they've shown they have completely mismanaged what they had to begin with. The government is like a teenager with an emergency credit card. They max it out, come crying to you, and you have no choice but to pay it. But do you give the card back to the teenager with an even higher limit? I should hope not. It's time to take the credit card away from the White House.

Lastly, I believe that once unemployment benefits are actually curtailed -- meaning you would receive them for X amount of weeks, with no additional extensions, you will see unemployment go down. When faced with no income, people will take jobs that pay less, are a step-down, etc. We have too many people looking for cushy $50K+ jobs with full benefits unwilling to take anything less. Is this everybody? Of course not. But I'm sure we all know a few "looking" for employment complaining that they can't find anything equal to or better than before. Part of the reason for this, I think, is that many jobs' salaries became overinflated during "good" times. Unfortunately, it's time for a reality check.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join