Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
It might come as a supprise..
But everything i say doesnt apply specificly to you... if your not apart of the problem feel comforted. Im speaking generaly about the broad subject of economic and social equality.
Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Hate taxes? Hate Big Government? Then you can move to glorious Somalia and enjoy "freedom" from taxes and government! The nirvana of a libertarian paradise by the sea. Yes you can keep it all in Somalia.
demagogue = "1. a political agitator who appeals with crude oratory to the prejudice and passions of the mob" see Grover Norquist
"The government is stealing your money" "Sure you're not rich right now... but if, no, no, WHEN you get rich that will be unfair. No worse than unfair, downright criminal."
The goverment can't do anything right crowd...except the military ofcourse. Yawwwwwwn. Pay up Greedy oinkers.
Figures represent the rates in place at the beginning and ending year of each presidency.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 92% - 91%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25%
John F. Kennedy
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 91%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25%
Lyndon B. Johnson
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: Over $400,000: 91% - Over $200,000: 75.25%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 25% - 26.9%
Richard M. Nixon
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $200,000: 77% - 70%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 27.5% - 36.5%
Gerald R. Ford
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over 200,000: 70%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 36.5% - 39.875%
Jimmy Carter
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $203,200 - $215,400: 70%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 39.875% - 28%
Ronald Reagan
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $215,400: 69.125% - over $29,750: 28%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 20% - 28%
George H.W. Bush
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: Over $30,950: 28% - Over $86,500: 31%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 28% - 28.93%
Bill Clinton
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $250,000: 39.6% - over $288,350: 39.6%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 29.19% - 21.19%
George W. Bush
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: Over $297,350: 39.1% - Over $357,700: 35%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 21.17% - 15.35%
Barack Obama
Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income: over $372,950 - over 388,350: 35%
Maximum Tax Rate on Long-Term Capital Gains: 15%
ABC News
Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by Skyfloating
I think your reading the graph wrong...it shows the 6-10% paid 10.65% in 2006 if the percent was on the left side then it shows that the bottom 50% paid 100% taxes. The top 1% paid the most in 2006 with 39.89%.
The U.S. tax system is highly progressive. The top 1 percent of income earners paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes in 2006,
So there is no way in earth they paid 70%. Ohhh sorry you was adding them together my badedit on 21-2-2012 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)edit on 21-2-2012 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Laokin
Yeah its pretty hard to not understand this is a constitutional republic where an attack on any group of Americans is an attack on us all.
Yeah its pretty hard to understand that people should have a problem with mob rule where they dictate how much money their lawful property they can have.
The simple fact that you wouldn't have anyone sticking their hands in your wallet but have no problems doing it to someone else.
That is just so hard to understand.edit on 21-2-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by GeorgiaGirl
O yeah i know how hard the rich had to work.... LOL
Sitting in an office making some phone calls. I wonder how much we could increase the pay of chinese factory workers if we cut the takehome pay of its CEO in half... maybe from 300,000 down to 150,000 Hopefully that fool can manage to live off of 150,000 a year for sitting at a desk.
Do you think the rich just hatched that way? I know some did, but there are many many people who you would consider to be rich that have worked their way up to their current positions. You don't start off as CEO.
My first job was working at a fast food restaurant. Then I waited tables throughout college. I sold appliances part time. I bartended. I've done many menial labor/minimum wage jobs in my lifetime. Those were backbreaking jobs--definitely hard work.
Now, I have a doctorate. I make a lot more per hour than I used to, that is for sure. But guess what--I now have knowledge and skills that I didn't have before.
I didn't like the minimum wage jobs, and I didn't like the minimum wage income. So I worked my way through college. Then I worked full time and went on through graduate school. There were times that I worked full time (as a teacher), part time (bartending), AND went to graduate school part time.
As I said, I am not rich (even a doctorate won't make a teacher rich!) But I realized early on that the kind of jobs that pay better are the ones that you need specialized training for. So I worked my butt off until I had that kind of specialized training. I didn't stay in the first fast food job I had, complaining about how hard I was working for so little pay.
And it ticks me off that people think me and my husband (who also teaches) should be glad to pay out 25% of our salaries so that it can be redistributed. That's where I'm coming from. You go after the income of the top 1%, and the top 5%, and the top 10%--when do you come after ME? When do you want 50% of MY income?edit on 21-2-2012 by GeorgiaGirl because: grammar
What pisses me off is that people can't seem to realize that the national debt began as soon as those rates dropped in the Reagan era. In college courses that would be called a direct correlation.
In order to truly justify the income tax it necessarily has to incite class warfare so that the "income tax" can be sold as a method of dealing with "income inequality", but in order to sell that scheme we have to first agree that we are lawfully bound to do whatever it is the majority tells us we have to do, which is not at all how law works under U.S. Constitutional government. The majority cannot grant themselves lawful authority to abrogate and derogate the rights of a minority, and this is why the United States is a republic and not a democracy, regardless of what Aristotle say's about the matter.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jacklondonmiller
What pisses me off is that people can't seem to realize that the national debt began as soon as those rates dropped in the Reagan era. In college courses that would be called a direct correlation.
You cannot make a direct correlation between a false hood and the truth. It is not at all true that "the national debt began as soon as those rates dropped in the Regan era". The United States debt began with the founding of the republic.
When the so called "Personal Income Tax" was first passed back in 1913 the national debt was nearly 3 billion dollars. If you don't trust that chart then consider this chart that tells the exact same story give or take a few years. Both graphs lead to today's astonishing U.S. national debt of nearly 15 and a 1/2 trillion dollars! Since the passage of this odious "income tax" - and with very little exception - the national debt has just steadily increased and at an exponential level. That would be an actual direct correlation.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,
In order to truly justify the income tax it necessarily has to incite class warfare so that the "income tax" can be sold as a method of dealing with "income inequality", but in order to sell that scheme we have to first agree that we are lawfully bound to do whatever it is the majority tells us we have to do, which is not at all how law works under U.S. Constitutional government. The majority cannot grant themselves lawful authority to abrogate and derogate the rights of a minority, and this is why the United States is a republic and not a democracy, regardless of what Aristotle say's about the matter.
Yes, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic and that means that all are supposed to be represented and we are not all represented. The real "scheme" is that the government now only represents the interest of the wealthy. As for income tax fixing income inequity, it hasn't yet, it is there to ensure that things remain unequal. If you win the lottery, you will pay 35% in income tax, if you make money on your stock holdings you will pay less. If you have a trust and the trust makes money on it's investments, you may pay even less or none.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jacklondonmiller
What pisses me off is that people can't seem to realize that the national debt began as soon as those rates dropped in the Reagan era. In college courses that would be called a direct correlation.
You cannot make a direct correlation between a false hood and the truth. It is not at all true that "the national debt began as soon as those rates dropped in the Regan era". The United States debt began with the founding of the republic.
When the so called "Personal Income Tax" was first passed back in 1913 the national debt was nearly 3 billion dollars. If you don't trust that chart then consider this chart that tells the exact same story give or take a few years. Both graphs lead to today's astonishing U.S. national debt of nearly 15 and a 1/2 trillion dollars! Since the passage of this odious "income tax" - and with very little exception - the national debt has just steadily increased and at an exponential level. That would be an actual direct correlation.
edit on 21-2-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)
