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

reply to post by Laokin

We are talking about Gates/Rockerfeller rich -- aka Billion-Trillionaire status.

There is not a single trillionaire on this this planet the simple fact there are only 400 billionaires in this county.

Nobody is worth a billion legally. Nobody.

That is not your call to make never will be

Originally posted by Laokin
The republic was hijacked shortly after it's inception, roughly around 1913.

Both of you are wrong, we live in Republic that is determined by democratic input and

principles.

reply to post by AQuestion


Dear AQuestion;

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.

It means far more than representation my friend, it means that representatives have certain restrictions placed upon them as do all other branches of government and those restrictions are in regards to the rights of the people. No legislative authority can deny or disparage (lawfully and Constitutionally) the rights of any individual. No executive authority can deny or disparage (lawfully and Constitutionally) the rights of any individual and no judicial authority can do the same.

The real "scheme" is that the government now only represents the interest of the wealthy.

Perhaps "schemes" are merely in the eye of the beholder, but the only scheme I am concerned about is the scheme where people are brainwashed into believing they are legally required to make an actual contract enforceable under the law of contracts with government to surrender their unalienable and natural rights. That scheme has little - if anything - to do with "representation" and has much - if not everything - to do with ambition and power.

As for income tax fixing income inequity, it hasn't yet, it is there to ensure that things remain unequal.

I am presuming you meant to type "inequality" but be rest assured that I view income taxation as one of the most vile dens of inequity to have ever built a stronghold. Further, I am certainly not advocating income taxation as a method of "fixing" income inequality and am much more a proponent of letting each individual fix their economic woes and maximize their own earning potential in a lawful - as opposed to legal - way that gives each individual the surest opportunity to flourish and prosper. Tax schemes will not "fix" economic disparities.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by Laokin

 

What we live in is called an Oligarchy, where the few control everything.

Right, under the guise of democracy, where the public opinion is controlled through forms of propaganda.

If the American people never bought the bridge of sole democracy, the oligarchy couldn't have come into power.

Ask any politician, what is our political philosophy, and they will all tell you a democracy, despite the fact that presidents come from a republic.

They don't want you to know it's a republic, because in a republic, the people control the government, not the other way around.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Laokin

 

We are talking about Gates/Rockerfeller rich -- aka Billion-Trillionaire status.

There is not a single trillionaire on this this planet the simple fact there are only 400 billionaires in this county.

Nobody is worth a billion legally. Nobody.

That is not your call to make never will be

edit on 21-2-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Well keep crossing your fingers Neo, in 30 years there will be 7 trillionaires
and the other 500,000,000 will be impoverished, but "FREE" (wink wink)

reply to post by mastahunta


Not really based off the simple fact of the 1913 dollar the value of the dollar is meaningless basing opinions of the terms millionaire and billionaire DON'T MEAN CRAP off of fiat currency.

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller

Originally posted by Laokin
The republic was hijacked shortly after it's inception, roughly around 1913.

Both of you are wrong, we live in Republic that is determined by democratic input and

principles.

Which is called a "Democratic-Republic."

Which is exactly what I said. The fact of the matter is, a fish is only a fish if we continue to call it and treat it like a fish.

I.E.

Nobody in government and I'd say nary in the general public would you find somebody who knew the US was supposed to operate as a Democratic-Republic. They all leave republic out entirely.

A republic doesn't have to be democratic. Rome was a Republic-Monarchy.

What we actually are is a Democratic-Oligarchy under the guise of Democracy, when we were intended to be a Democratic-Republic.

reply to post by jacklondonmiller

Ronald Reagan accrued more debt than all the presidents combined before him.

That, of course, does not change the fact that the national debt actually and factually began in 1791 not during the Regan Era.

The direct correlation is

1. Ronald Reagan reduced potential income of the government

2. which created government borne debt when those liabilities were not funded and paid for

3. Resulting in a national debt, due to the reduced income and sustain liabilities

Garbage in garbage out. Your data is flawed.

1. Congress has the complete and plenary power of taxation and only Congress can "reduce the potential income of the government.

2. The tax reductions did not "result in a national debt" as one all ready existed prior to these specific reductions you're citing. It is true that while revenue was reduced government spending was expanded but this did not create the national debt, it simply added to it and added quite a bit.

3. You keep ignoring the fact that the United States has had a national debt since its inception and without exception has been in debt every year the U.S. has existed. If your argument is that Ronald Regan was the President who added more to the national debt than any other President, then make this argument. That argument, however, does not support your contention that the national debt began with the Regan era.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Not really based off the simple fact of the 1913 dollar the value of the dollar is meaningless basing opinions of the terms millionaire and billionaire DON'T MEAN CRAP off of fiat currency.

edit on 21-2-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Did you respond to someone else's post???
What are gonna do when a select few own the majority of the things that keep people employed?
They will essentially control all of us... I do not think becoming a Trillionaire is a great expression of
Freedom, I think it is the sign that Oligarchy has undermined freedom.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Laokin

 

We are talking about Gates/Rockerfeller rich -- aka Billion-Trillionaire status.

There is not a single trillionaire on this this planet the simple fact there are only 400 billionaires in this county.

Nobody is worth a billion legally. Nobody.

That is not your call to make never will be

edit on 21-2-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Oh because David Rockerfeller isn't a Trillionaire?

Who are you kidding, his money is just hidden under different entities and assets to make it very difficult to put the head behind the power.


Also, I'm not the one making the call, reality is. You can't argue with facts. Billionaires are not made through commerce, they are made through derivatives and trading debt illegally.


Bill Gates is not the richest man in the world, he's actually pretty far from it, nor did he make most of his money through Microsoft, he's no longer even affiliated with Microsoft and he's still making billions.

reply to post by Laokin


Haven't seen any facts from you so billionaires aren't made through commerce eh?

Tell that to Bill Gates, Steve Jobs. Larry Page and Sergey Brin and Mark Zuckerberg


Between listening to some poster and the Forbes wealth list I will go with Forbes.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,

I am not advocating income tax, I am talking about a rigged system. It goes way beyond taxes. You say that the rights of the minority cannot be abrogated; but, try raising crops and you will discover how regulated you are about what you can even grow on your own land. Congress regularly passes bills that will have little riders in them totally unrelated to the issue at hand and that benefit only one or a very few special interests and or people. As for the Constitution, it is completely ignored anymore. Executive Directives and administrative decisions have more of an impact on you then legislation.

A society that believes in everyman for himself ends up with nothing for most.

www.forbes.com...

Looky there don't see a rockefellar in the top 10

reply to post by Laokin


Dear Laokin,

Right, under the guise of democracy, where the public opinion is controlled through forms of propaganda.

Based on what I have read of the presidential debates and by the candidates, they have dispenses with even attempting to say things should be either a democracy or a republic. One candidate says that he won't represent the poor and another says that he would throw judges in jail if they disagreed with him. We are headed down the road of fascism and not socialism. In either case, we have ceased being for the people.

Fallacy!

What percentage of all the wealth did the top 10% earn?
What percentage of all the wealth do the top 10% hoard?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
.

That, of course, does not change the fact that the national debt actually and factually began in 1791 not during the Regan Era.

The point is, this insane debt culture in Washington began with Reagan.

Carter accrued 41% increase in national debt

Reagan accrued 189% increase in national debt, an average rate of -29% a year

Exactly because he slashed revenue that would have otherwise been used to pay for his spending.

The direct correlation is

1. Ronald Reagan reduced potential income of the government

2. which created government borne debt when those liabilities were not funded and paid for

3. Resulting in a national debt, due to the reduced income and sustain liabilities

Garbage in garbage out. Your data is flawed.

1. Congress has the complete and plenary power of taxation and only Congress can "reduce the potential income of the government.

Yes and it was Reagan's efforts that lead to the seachange in tax code, policy and spending

so don't give me that hog wash, I watched him do it.

2. The tax reductions did not "result in a national debt" as one all ready existed prior to these specific reductions you're citing. It is true that while revenue was reduced government spending was expanded but this did not create the national debt, it simply added to it and added quite a bit.

He established the practice, most business use debt as a means to recoup larger profit, debt

is usually used to increase profits at a later time. It is an investment model that can work, if

it is done responsibly. But increasing debt by 4 or five times the established rate is not sensible,

it is wreck-less

3. You keep ignoring the fact that the United States has had a national debt since its inception and without exception has been in debt every year the U.S. has existed. If your argument is that Ronald Regan was the President who added more to the national debt than any other President, then make this argument. That argument, however, does not support your contention that the national debt began with the Regan era.

My point was to show that the massive national debt model came into practice when Reagan cut federal

revenue in exchange for tax cuts for the wealthy.

Tax rates dropped/high earners kept more money

Result

National debt grew at 450% its normal clip

edit on 21-2-2012 by jacklondonmiller because: (no reason given)

reply to post by beezzer

That would mean that 90% pay only 29% of the tax burden. Since 50% don't pay federal taxes, that means 40%, actually pay. Which means a greater burden on the middle class. So. We could further tax the wealthy, the successful. Or start taxing middle class more, who are already feeling a huge burden. Or, start taxing those that make less than 30K a year. Or. . . here's a wacky thought. A totally insane and crazy idea! Have the government NOT SPEND SO MUCH!!!!

you're right, and you're wrong.

a 15 trillion dollar deficit won't go away easily, the interest payments alone are crazy. yes, the government needs to cut spending so that the deficit is less than zero. that alone will never happen, but even if it did, getting out of debt is going to take more money.

currently people make millions off of stocks each year while providing no service or product. these same people are taxed a smaller percentage than someone making $12 an hour.

the only solution that is reasonable, fair, and viable is a flat tax (or a slight upward gradient) combined with MASSIVE spending cuts.

Originally posted by trust_no_one
so they're paying 71% of federal income tax revenues but i bet they are receiving more than 71% of total income.

sorry in a hurry wasnt able to check if this has been brought up already

amen.

Everyone should pay the same percentage. Simple as that. We were all taught about ratios in elementary school

reply to post by AQuestion

You say that the rights of the minority cannot be abrogated

I say that the rights of individuals cannot be (lawfully or Constitutionally) abrogated and/or derogated. Status has no bearing when it comes to the protection of a right. No one need prove any legal status in order to show injury, only that they show injury is enough. Minority status is all about "civil rights" which are legal rights and what can be granted by government legally can legally be taken away. The rights of the individual are not legal rights and preexist government and are arguably the purpose for that government to begin with, that being the protection of individual rights.

Besides, there is no greater minority than that of the individual.

but, try raising crops and you will discover how regulated you are about what you can even grow on your own land.

It was no accident that L. Frank Baum created a naive little girl named Dorothy and her spunky pup Toto to symbolize the general American public, and it is no accident that he then created a cowardly lion that would symbolize blustering politicians, a tin man that would symbolize the heartlessness of factory work and labor, and a scarecrow that would symbolize the mindless farmer. Somewhere along the line, the American farmer went from rugged individualist suspicious of all things government and became instead subsidy seeking people who would rather be paid not to farm than to farm, and did all this by ignoring what they all ready knew and instead listening to priest class lawyers who uttered their mystical incantations of legalese and convinced the farmer they were just too stupid to understand how law really works and they should just trust that all these regulations inhibiting their chances of success are really for their own good.

"If I only had a brain" indeed.

It doesn't take a legal expert to challenge bogus legislation, it does however take someone who is willing to understand the law as it only can be, and that is through its simplicity. If what I am doing as a farmer causes no demonstrable harm to others than what I do I do by right and any legislation telling me otherwise better have a damn compelling reason as to why it would diminish my right in favor of expanded government. This takes actually challenging legislation, not voting "the bums out" not joining trendy protest movements, but actually standing tall and demanding justice.

A society that believes in everyman for himself ends up with nothing for most.

The collectivist must always create straw men arguments in order to re-frame the argument. For the collectivist, individualism becomes translated into "everyman for himself" in order to create an appearance of chaos and anarchy. It is nothing more than sophistry.

reply to post by beezzer


I think you're missing the point. As many have pointed out in the thread the top 10% aren't paying 71% of their income in taxes. They are actually paying less percentage wise than the average citizen. This is not fair, this is what Warren Buffet was talking about. He explained in an interview that he pays 15% in fed income tax while his secretary pays closer to 21%..youtu.be...