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.
Because there are things we want to do as a country--and they are not free.
Only 375,000 Americans have incomes of over $1,000,000
Between 1979 and 2007, incomes for the wealthiest 1% of Americans rose by 281%
During the Great Depression, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 68%
In 1963, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 91%
In 1976, millionaires had a top marginal tax rate of 70%
Today, millionaires have a top marginal tax rate of 35%
Reducing the income tax on top earners is one of the most inefficient ways to grow the economy according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office
44% of Congress people are millionaires. The tax cuts were never meant to be permanent
Letting tax cuts for the top 2% expire as scheduled would pay down the debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years
Originally posted by links234
Honestly, who in their right mind could be opposed to this?
Letting tax cuts for the top 2% expire as scheduled would pay down the debt by $700 billion over the next 10 years
Clinton on Monday proposed paying off the national debt by 2015 after issuing a new budget outlook that adds $1 trillion more to the overall budget surplus over the next 15 years.
I would argue that we're still capable of generating revenue with tax increases at this point, considering how low they are.
As for the argument that the money would just be 'sqaundered' I could agree with that.
Clinton: Pay debt by 2015
The republicans took office and listened to the ideas of supply side economics, gave into tax cuts for everyone.
Which reduced government revenue, no matter how you look at it.
We were then brought into to two wars overseas and allowed deregulation to destroy our economy.
I don't want to Bush-bash
but can anyone accept the idea that the first decade of the 21st century has nearly destroyed the country in economic terms?
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true. In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
WASHINGTON — Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it's simply somebody else's problem. About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.
Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability.
Originally posted by neo96
71 million pay no tax
47 million receive welfare
The number of families on welfare had been falling steadily and, nine months into the recession, stood at 1.6 million in September 2008, the most recent date for which national tallies are available.
In general, a family of four must have a monthly income of less than $2,297 to qualify for food stamps. Welfare, on the other hand, is designed as a last resort.
20 million people are out of work and drawing unemployement
While 13.2 million people were unemployed in March, approximately 5.8 million were collecting unemployment benefits at the end of the month...
around 120 million people actually work in this country
so the solution is to rape the top earners when hello? look at those numbers why should those people be paying more.
like i said a fair tax no group or individual rights are more important than any other.
you want links i am not going to do the work for you do what i and everyone else does use google and the internet to find your own answers not what someone else says.
tell that to cnn and msnbc they were wrong.
now you raise his taxes the first thing to go are the people
and doesnt end back up at the government.
people who employ create wealth. people who work pay taxes
This is only proof of the greedy, vindictive motive rich people can have when faced with less wealth. It really has nothing to do with taxes. What happens when costs rise? Does he lay people off to protect his income? According to your analogy, he would!
According to your ideology, why would you want it to end up in government hands? Your statement is either contradictory or hypocritical.