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.

 

The Top 10% of income earners paid 71% of federal income tax

page: 36
33
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
Are you being serious?

190% increase in debt liabilities every year for 30 years would consume the GDP before fiscal year even started.

For Christs sake Obama has only hit 45%, is there reason why you ignoring the vast and gross negligence 189% represents?

Ignoring is vastly different than understanding.

I am ignoring the 190% (and the 45%) because they are meaningless numbers. You would need to understand that debt is only a good analysis tool when you have something to compare it to. For example, if you have $10 debt and you increase that to $30 dollars debt, you have increased by 200%...which sounds terrible. If you have an income of $500, it is, all of a sudden, not very terrible at all. That is why debt needs to be compared to something. I will use the economic standard of debt to GDP.

Reagan debt to GDP at start: 32%
Reagan debt to GDP at end: 52%
Total debt growth: 20% of GDP

Both are well within what was (and still is) considered manageable.

Obama debt to GDP at start: 85%
Current debt to GDP: 106%
Total debt growth: 21% of GDP

Both are easily considered excessive. I readily admit that this is not an 'Obama problem', as he inherited and excessive debt load with massive deficits.

The thing you fail to mention (I am starting to wonder why?) is that although Reagan increased debt, he increased GDP as well...at a significantly better pace than at current, which is why his debt increase of 190% relates to a smaller difference than Obama's debt increase of 45% on a debt to GDP scale.


I am not arguing that the GDP didn't rise, it did, it is called Keynesian economics

when the government spends to stimulate economic growth in the private sector.

I take issue with the amount Ronald Reagan increased spending, getting 32% on a test

in 1962 does not mean that the score is invalid just because it is 2012. Reagan broke

all the molds and implemented the current debt model that America is a slave to.

I can make $50,000 get a cash advance for $50,000 and look like I have earned $100,000,

this is exactly what you are trying to get me to agree with.

On a side note, every single person on this thread that I have talked to has acted in bad faith.

When I was young people did not readily commit to such half truths, even if it made your

argument look soft because there was admiration for the truth. Some of you make Lawyers

look tame, so maybe you guys should think about becoming politicians.





yup... That says it all.

The same people who bash Big Spending, Big Government lovers
admire the grandfather of Big Spending, Big Government. If these
people saw an R next to Obama's name, they would love him, it is
pathetic and sad because they point the finger, they are the people
who claim to be against it.

It is not like liberals create social programs and then blame the GOP
for these programs. That is the difference in issue after issue, there is
no comparable mechanism in the liberal machine that I can detect.
This is probably because conservatives seem to be against everything
that doesn't benefit the rich first and foremost.

Can any name three things the GOP has done for a large cross section
of American citizens in the last 30 years?




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by jacklondonmiller
 


Then you never should have said this


It was irresponsible to cut rates so dramatically and apparently



be completely mathematically challenged.


I don't see a damn thing wrong about his assertions.
I happen to love numbers, lets go at it, anytime... Tell
me how anyone can think Reagan's spending was
reasonable? It was out of fricking control



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
The biggest problem with the entire argument here is that there an an extremely rich 1% some of whom pay no taxes hiding with the other top 9% who busted their butts and did things ethically to get there.

The original OWS movement was only about that corrupt portion of the top 1% who have cheated and stolen to get where they are.

Tonight on ABC news they said someone filling up a Ford F150 truck was paying over $14 per tank directly to wall street speculators.
edit on 23-2-2012 by Asktheanimals because: added comment



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
The biggest problem with the entire argument here is that there an an extremely rich 1% some of whom pay no taxes hiding with the other top 9% who busted their butts and did things ethically to get there.

The original OWS movement was only about that corrupt portion of the top 1% who have cheated and stolen to get where they are.

Tonight on ABC news they said someone filling up a Ford F150 truck was paying over $14 per tank directly to wall street speculators.


Exactly and GOP blocked the largest speculation probe ever launched back in 2008
titled NOPEC, they killed it and we paid for it, still do.

When we start killing each other over our differences, i wonder if our speculation loving
friends on this thread will see how they enabled tragedy with their blind defense of the
rich?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

When we start killing each other over our differences, i wonder if our speculation loving
friends on this thread will see how they enabled tragedy with their blind defense of the
rich?



Are you kidding me? They won't be able to see over the little drink umbrellas their sipping on the back of their yachts.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Originally posted by mastahunta

When we start killing each other over our differences, i wonder if our speculation loving
friends on this thread will see how they enabled tragedy with their blind defense of the
rich?



Are you kidding me? They won't be able to see over the little drink umbrellas their sipping on the back of their yachts.


Well the financially poor foot soldiers who love to defend and worship the rich
would, possible feel a little bit stupid...



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller
On a side note, every single person on this thread that I have talked to has acted in bad faith.

When I was young people did not readily commit to such half truths, even if it made your argument look soft because there was admiration for the truth. Some of you make Lawyers look tame, so maybe you guys should think about becoming politicians.


So your entire response is that we are liars because you don't understand economics or economic theory?

Why am I not surprised?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta
yup... That says it all.

The same people who bash Big Spending, Big Government lovers
admire the grandfather of Big Spending, Big Government. If these
people saw an R next to Obama's name, they would love him, it is
pathetic and sad because they point the finger, they are the people
who claim to be against it.

It is not like liberals create social programs and then blame the GOP
for these programs. That is the difference in issue after issue, there is
no comparable mechanism in the liberal machine that I can detect.
This is probably because conservatives seem to be against everything
that doesn't benefit the rich first and foremost.

Can any name three things the GOP has done for a large cross section
of American citizens in the last 30 years?


And what does that say about non-Americans that agree with the actions he took?

We must be Republicans!


Some of us see it for exactly what it was, a noble attempt to save a dying economy. From a purely academic stand point, Reagan (or his economic advisers) made the best decisions they could make at the time the decisions were made. They accomplished almost every goal they tried to accomplish, economically.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


The top 10% also own 70.9% of the wealth in America... go figure...
I think the main argument behind the idea that the rich should pay higher taxes is not that they aren't paying like everyone else is, it's that the BURDEN of taxes is MUCH higher on low income families than the rich.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to think it's "unfair" for the rich to pay higher taxes and not be able to buy their 5th Ferrari that year when other families are struggling to pay rent, put food on the table, can't afford decent medical care etc. Screw the greed by the rich in this country who sit in their gold plated jacuzzis often paying lower or the same % of taxes as a janitor working twice as many hours scrubbing up crap and probably has never even seen a jacuzzi in his life, and probably can't afford the medical bills to keep his wife alive when she gets cancer or something.

We've been brainwashed to think greed is a positive trait and the super rich are some how all super amazing dudes worth 10000 times more than your average man or that they are 10000 times smarter and thus deserve to earn 10000 more money. When in reality, the majority of them just got lucky stumbling on a good investment, or were born into their wealth or were pyschopaths who destroyed many other people's lives to get where they are. There's actually a study that shows that CEOs of major corporations are often undiagnosed psychopaths who have less empathy for their fellow man than criminals.. I'll have to dig that up sometime. So basically we worship psychopaths all day and let them bend us over and "earn" (rob) all this country's wealth.
edit on 23-2-2012 by darkest4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by mastahunta
yup... That says it all.

The same people who bash Big Spending, Big Government lovers
admire the grandfather of Big Spending, Big Government. If these
people saw an R next to Obama's name, they would love him, it is
pathetic and sad because they point the finger, they are the people
who claim to be against it.

It is not like liberals create social programs and then blame the GOP
for these programs. That is the difference in issue after issue, there is
no comparable mechanism in the liberal machine that I can detect.
This is probably because conservatives seem to be against everything
that doesn't benefit the rich first and foremost.

Can any name three things the GOP has done for a large cross section
of American citizens in the last 30 years?


And what does that say about non-Americans that agree with the actions he took?

We must be Republicans!


Some of us see it for exactly what it was, a noble attempt to save a dying economy. From a purely academic stand point, Reagan (or his economic advisers) made the best decisions they could make at the time the decisions were made. They accomplished almost every goal they tried to accomplish, economically.



If you want to be considered a Republican, first you have to kill 90% of your
braincells, or worship dollar bills in a quasi sexual manner...

Well if you not an American conservative, at least you are not a fat juicy hypocrite.
But I doubt if Reagan intended to have the 2012 economy sitting here with Trillions
of his interest compounding every quarter, or maybe he did.
edit on 23-2-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   
TPTB want cheap labor and to break up any sort of successful labor movement or organization. That is why the US is being stripped and sold for parts. Their model is the Feudal System with the mass of powerless working poor and the few elite. That is the plan.

Also the removal of tariffs and the insane trade policies of the US which allowed our manufacturing to literally be shipped overseas or south of the border.

A thought...The reason they stopped tattooing slaves is that the slaves would soon realize there are far more slaves than the greedy oinkers.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by phatpackage
 


What exactly is "real" money? And what constitutes "earning" it? What are you people [snip] stupid? Have you learned nothing about our past 2000 years as a civilization?

There is no "real" money and there's no such thing as "earning" it. You're given what you're allowed to be given based on how many of your human virtues you're willing to sacrifice. It is that simple. Your "work" is irrelevant. For example, you can work harder than any human on earth at curing cancer. You'll get paid nothing and probably assassinated. However, you could work your ass off on a human virus. You'll retire young and be given government benefits for the rest of your life. You can apply this to all walks of life. The "work" here is irrelevant. It's your lifestyle you're paid for. "Money" is just an excuse to sell your humanity!

##SNIPPED##
Why must we argue among failed philosophies? Economics is just as warped as politics except at least the majority of you accept that politics is rigged. Sure, you're free to vote for who "they" choose you can vote for. You can't deny this is true. Just like you're free to as much money as you want. As long as you jump through the hoops "they" set out for you. And you call yourself rich, and free? You might have a grander delusion of freedom because you and your family are not starving in a rotting alley but it's still a delusion.

Have any of you considered why the [snip] are we paying tax in the first place? Do any of you ask this question? Why do the rich have to pay any tax at all? Why do the poor have to pay any tax at all? By who's authority is this enforced? I mean [snip], you go to JAIL if you don't pay them this money they demand.

Let me get this straight. A group of individuals seize control of your economy and your country, and then convince you that YOU must pay THEM for them to afford the costs of CONTROLLING YOU? What are you guys [snip] mad? Tax is not the issue here! For christ's sake, look at the bigger picture. What is your tax money being spent on? Making your life experience better for you? Or sustaining the elite's control over you? The answer should be so obvious it makes you feel stupid. And if it's not, then maybe you ARE stupid! God damn this # is frustrating.

And don't call me naive or ignorant just because I think there's something fundamentally wrong with society because I seem to be among very few intelligent people who will even admit this fact! If you disagree with what I'm saying here then you're part of the problem. You can only become part of the solution when you realize that we have never had a fair economic system, we've never had a fair society, we've never had fair rights and we've never been free. Ever. Not for even a moment, except maybe after death.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by refused
 




And don't call me naive or ignorant just because I think there's something fundamentally wrong with society because I seem to be among very few intelligent people who will even admit this fact!


For starters I never called you ignorant or naive. Your words not mine. How dare you put words in my mouth! Among the few. Well that is very debatable. You tell yourself whatever want.



What exactly is "real" money? And what constitutes "earning" it? What are you people [snip] stupid? Have you learned nothing about our past 2000 years as a civilization?


"Big" money where you have risked everything financially and worked hard and it has come off big time for you.



There is no "real" money and there's no such thing as "earning" it.


Well in terms of paper money being real (not backed up by gold reserves) well yes to a degree. Countries do have gold reserves so there must be some real gold backed up money. But if you read properly you would see I was not referring to it in that context Massive fail on your part.

As for earning it's called work. You cannot understand that. If you receive money for your labor (regardless of whether that label is physical or mental) well that is earned. Not a hard concept there.

Again you sound like a jealous child with communistic based fantasies and ideas.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by refused
 


Exceptionally excellent post. Well put.


Economics is just as warped as politics except at least the majority of you accept that politics is rigged.


Corporate execs are nothing but private sector politicians who pander to a more exclusive audience. The idea that people vote through spending is completely ridiculous.


What is your tax money being spent on? Making your life experience better for you? Or sustaining the elite's control over you? The answer should be so obvious it makes you feel stupid. And if it's not, then maybe you ARE stupid! God damn this # is frustrating.



IMO, Too many are dead set on pandering to the super rich hoping they get some table scraps. They have no moral fiber whatsoever.


You can only become part of the solution when you realize that we have never had a fair economic system, we've never had a fair society, we've never had fair rights and we've never been free.


It will never be a perfect world, and if such a thing existed, we would probably all die of boredom. However, things have been better, and could be much better.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Don't buy into the propaganda.

The ops title ignore the major factor that every school kid with a bank account is counted as an income earner, and so are retired people. Those people make up the vast majority of people paying no income tax.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

Don't buy into the propaganda.

The ops title ignore the major factor that every school kid with a bank account is counted as an income earner, and so are retired people. Those people make up the vast majority of people paying no income tax.


Can you substantiate this pile of your propaganda?



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by jacklondonmiller
 


Then you never should have said this


It was irresponsible to cut rates so dramatically and apparently



be completely mathematically challenged.


I don't see a damn thing wrong about his assertions.
I happen to love numbers, lets go at it, anytime... Tell
me how anyone can think Reagan's spending was
reasonable? It was out of fricking control


Don't have interest in going at it with someone who can't read what's written and not interpret it according to what he thinks is said. Read my posts in this thread and see if you still got a problem with it.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Will you admit you have been suckered by this propaganda when I do?

Know anyone with kids who have savings accounts? If you do, ask them if those kids are reported as income earners and receive tax information from those banks, and you will find out that they are included as federal income earners.

Look up the percentage of the population that is of school age or younger, and the percentage who are retired, and you will find the proof, and the truth. Last I checked that is close to 50% of the population.

Then ask yourself what kind of fool pushes to make kids pay income taxes.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by Kali74
 


Regarding the calculations you are posting or linking to: Could you simplify a little and tell us the percentage you think the top 10% earners are paying, in one short sentence? If its not 70%, what then?

With the enormous amount of posts some simplification would be appreciated.


Where did anyone post anything showing the top one percent pay 70% of the taxes?
I seem to have missed that.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
No sport, I was originally in a discussion with OutKast when you decided to smarmily interject with your snide sarcasm that was all about presumption of liability. You made some stupid claim that you were "with me" when you clearly had no idea what I am talking about and it is clear you remain clueless still.



No.

I never mentioned liability at all. Not in any post on ATS.
You need to find whomever you should actually be responding to and stop trolling me and trying to disrupt this thread. If you have a crush, send a private message.

Continually claiming I wrote things that are nowhere to be found accomplishes absolutely nothing but to expose your dishonesty.

Seriously, get off of it. I never said any of the things you have said I said. You had plenty of time to quote me and prove me wrong. Instead you are sitting there like a child arguing about nonsense.

I would like to get back on topic. You go ahead and lie to other people about what they say. I am not stupid enough to be convinced I wrote things I never did. I am not sure what you think this is working towards but so far it has accomplished nothing.




top topics



 
33
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join