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.
I wasn't saying "make a utopia" I was just saying "don't let one man keep half of America's cash in his pockets alone, just because he like how it feels against us thighs" of course, with slightly different words
Originally posted by Drew99GT
Originally posted by thegagefather
Give me one logical reason that we can't make it fair.
The Bolshevik Revolution? Worked out great, right? How about Greece today. I'm all for income equality, but the question is, how do you practically go about getting it??? Historically, major efforts to achieve it haven't exactly worked out too well. And in today's world, if you raise a rich bastards taxes too much, they'll just move their income and assets to the Cayman Islands and say "nanner nanner".
Originally posted by thegagefather
You are correct, and I will recrunch my numbers.
In the meanwhile, here's an article about recent tax-caps.
thejcrevelator2.hubpages.com...edit on 26-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason given)
I didn't know about that cap on tax that is shrinking every year but it makes sense on account of them owning congress.
Originally posted by soundguy
reply to post by libertytoall
. Most people these days would say the fifties was our golden era of late, what was the top rate tax rate then?
Originally posted by thegagefather
my numbers were moreso from the national taxpayer's union numbers than IRS, though some were IRS
Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by poet1b
What figures, I have yet to see any figures on what the income of the wealthy, 5 Mil annual income group, actually pays, except what the Op presented. All I have seen from the conservative side is a bunch of cherry picked data, that also doesn't include all the taxes, which fall disproportionately on the poor.
This is a joke right? You accept the OP's figures and label schuyler's as "cherry picked"? Same source for both, IRS.
Originally posted by thegagefather
actually, he did.
Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by poet1b
Because Schuyler counts all of the top 1% as rich, and that is pure nonsense. 1 out of a hundred people are not rich.
LIE, flat out LIE. He didn't count anyone as "rich". His categories are the same as the NTU's from the OP's link that you accept. Trifling.
You are the one that lies.
Schulyer puts his numbers up claiming that the "Rich" do pay their share of taxes.
His numbers do not show the income or tax rate of the rich, only the top 1%.
He obfuscates, and then you back him with lies.
In the U.S., the rich are getting subsidized by the upper middle class. That isn't fair, and that is what the numbers show.
Create new brackets that take into account larger and larger sums.
The numbers are bogus because they represent the top 1% as rich, otherwise why would be put up this charts when talking about the rich. The charts have no data on the rich.
Well, since 1% own 40% of the goods... Let's find out how much, in percentages, the top 1% is paying!
So... According to these numbers, the rich, in 2007 were paying just over 40%
When people think of the top 1% of Americans, they're thinking of the super-elite. The problem with that is, the top 1% aren't anywhere NEAR the super-elites in the US.
While MOST families in the top 1% are paying close to what they owe, there are a few family households in the US which would make even most of the 1%'s vomit in sight of the absolute greed.
The fact is, if we included the top 0.0002% of the wealthy in this graph, the section that says "42%" would probably shrink to something more like 5%, and it would be much easier to see that it's 400 select families that actually own roughly 40% of all of the US assests and cash.
Because the median salary of these 400 families is over $87,000,000 (some being much, much, much higher) meaning that in order to pay what the US has decided their "fair share" is, they would pay $34,800,000. Instead, they paid $400,000.
It is a big fat lie, and your claim otherwise is a big fat lie. Obfuscation is all you do.
Originally posted by soundguy
reply to post by libertytoall
You are full of it
nearly every word or your post is a falsehood or half truth. If you would take a moment and actually do some research you would see this quite quickly.
Most people these days would say the fifties was our golden era of late, what was the top rate tax rate then?
The ignorance displayed by these statements dismays me, so much so, I felt the need to respond. This infuriates me so because most people have no grasp of how the bigger system works, nor do they need to.
The fact of matter is, those high tax rates fuled investment. As Warren Buffet keeps saying he pays less than his secretary. How you may ask? Because his income is mostly capital gains. Get it? Capitall gains are taxed at a far lower rate, like 15-20 percent give or take, I have not looked at this number In awhile. So what was the upper executive to do with that income above 2 million? Invest it, that is what they did. Because the income invested did not count as fully taxable income. If they were savy investors they could do well. And in turn only pay a paltry amount of tax.
So in closing, high marginal rates, plus great tax incentives for investment,