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.

 

CBO: The rich pay an outsized share of taxes

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Now, to the issue of "too expensive to maintain the in US". How do you defined "too expensive"? Capitalism used to be a social contract where corporations were invented to shield investors from too much risk, and then protected by the laws of this society because people understood the value of enterprise to the well being of the nation. Now, the corporations show the middle finger to the nation that nurtured them, including workers and yes, janitors.



I hate to be Debbie Downer, but corporations have never had a 'social contract' with capitalism (which corporations actually pre-date by quite some time) or was it ever intended to protect the public at large.

Corporations have always been about one thing, protecting their investors.

A long time ago, the investors where the workers. Those that invested time, labour, resources, to the corporation. Than the primary required resource became money and we moved to where we are today.

The one thing that hasn't changed in all that time? Corporation's mandate to protect their investors.

Why is there so much confusion and hatred towards corporations? Most corporations are single owner/operators. The bulk of the working public are employed by them...why all the hate?




posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
“Specifically, between 2007 and 2009, the share of taxes paid fell for the bottom three income quintiles, was close to flat for the fourth quintile, but rose for the highest quintile,” CBO said. “Within the top quintile, however, the shift was uneven; the share paid by the top percentile fell, and the share paid by the rest of the top quintile rose.”

Thats the salient paragraph.

Its says that if you divide the nations income spread into fifths (quintiles) then the bottom three 5ths (60%) paid less tax, the 4th group (60-80%) remained static but the top 20% paid more.

However the real kicker is in the last line. The very top of the top 20% (the top 1%) paid less while more of the burden fell on the rest of the top group (the remaining top 19%).

Its important to understand the difference in range of income covered by the groups we are talking about. This is old data from 2003 but it will do for illustration.

P0-89 (bottom 90%) — income below $104,696
P90-100 (top 10%) — income above $104,696
P90-95 (next 5%) — income between $104,696 and $148,423
P95-99 (next 4%) — income between $148,423 and $382,593
P99-100 (top 1%) — income above $382,593
P99.5-100 (top 0.5%) — income above $597,584
P99.9-100 (top 0.1%) — income above $1,898,200
P99.99-100 (top .01%) — income above $10,659,283

Given the increasing wealth disparity its exactly as you expect. The mega rich wont pay because they write the rules and don't have to, the poor cant pay, so it all has to be borne by the shrinking middle.

Fortunately its easy to convince those in the lower range of the top 20% group that their enemy is those struggling at the bottom rather than those above laughing at them.

edit on 10-7-2012 by justwokeup because: typo



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Praetorius
 


reply to post by peck420
 


I am merely providing food for thought, as opposed to the attitude-ridden delusion that is the OP. How do you suppose these 'dirty socialist' countries keep beating the rest of the world in economic reports and statistics?

Here is a great example of the Nordic 'dirty socialist' countries with high tax rates on the rich outperforming the rest of the world:

The Nordic countries have the least deprivation among children, all with rates below 3%.

www.unicef.org...

Note for those about to make the mistake of thinking this is a one-off example. It is not, The socialist countries are kicking our asses economically.


So is Canada, and so UAE and so is a myriad of other states...and, not all of them socialist.

The two things they all seem to have in common:
Commodities
Small Populations (relative to the US)

See the trend?

The thing that gets most forgotten in these sorts of examples is that when dealing with people, larger numbers does not equate to higher efficiency and larger profits. In fact, it could be argued that humans induce the exact opposite result.

Basically a country with a small population can make better use of a smaller resource pool to make society better than a large population can, despite the larger resource pool.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Why is there so much confusion and hatred towards corporations? Most corporations are single owner/operators. The bulk of the working public are employed by them...why all the hate?


Because in their zeal to protect their precious investors they rape and pillage the land, outsource most work to other countries thereby deleting jobs, pay slave labour wages and work the employees to near death doing so, influence government policy through lobbying that is almost always detrimental to everyone else but the corporation......I could go on all day......


......remember the GFC? I wonder who caused that? I'll give you a hint, it starts with a C.....



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


Unfortunately, your rant only applies to the few, not the many.

Which is why I posed my question.

The vast (and I do mean vast) majority of corporations are small operations. The few are the large.

If you feel there should limits on how large a corporation can become, on how much power it can obtain, that is one thing. To attack the one protection that most small business owners have is entirely another.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
so they earn ninety something percent of the money but pay sixty something percent of the taxes?
What am i missing again?



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by eazyriderl_l
 


You're missing nothing, although some would have you believe you are deluded and you're seeing the numbers wrong or some ridiculous excuse.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Let's see here.... a top Exec. takes home $150 k minimum which is many time the minimum wage of $7.25 or approximately $15,080 year

the RATIO is therefore 10X

does a rich person pay that 10X the tax rate of the low-income earner ?


it is known that many CEO's earn over 480X the wages of the factory-line worker
does that top exec pay anywhere near 480X the taxes of a middle class line-worker in a factory ?


i say NO WAY JOSE'


no, these elites are pampered by the laws & rules that the Lobbyists intended for the Corporations originally but filtered down to the top levels of Exec's



even with the 'sliding rule' of wealth confiscation (aka taxes) the wealthy 'feel no pain'



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by eazyriderl_l
 


You are missing the fact that 1000 corporations are being used in examples that will effect millions of corporations.

Those millions are not internationals, they don't employ hundreds (or thousands) of people, and they don't make millions of dollars.

There are around 6,000,000 corporations in the US. Of that, approx 5,930,000 employ 500 or fewer persons.

How many of those millions are worth the destruction of the top 1,000?

How many Americans will be out of work when those business' close?

I'll give you and idea.
Employed by small corporations: 120,870,000
Employed by largest corporations: 33,025,000

Seems a lot like throwing out the baby with the bath water, when a couple, simple law changes could fix your problems.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
I hate to be Debbie Downer, but corporations have never had a 'social contract' with capitalism (which corporations actually pre-date by quite some time) or was it ever intended to protect the public at large.


Whether you are Debbie or not, you seriously misunderstood my post. Again, the concept of corporation instituted in the society (and vigorously protected by same) is meant to shield individuals from catastrophic losses that could result from a failing business, and all sorts of liabilities. It's up to the society which laws to draft, and how, but many people forget this and assume that free-for-all is some magic formula that deserves religious status. There is nothing moral or metaphysical about corporations, they were set up as a practical measure to spur business activity. As soon as corporations prove to be less than useful, there is no reason why their status cannot be re-established.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd
 
And a further tax increase will just cause the wealthy business owners to raise the prices of their goods and services, which means. . . .

The poor and the middle class will be paying for the tax increase.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd
 
And a further tax increase will just cause the wealthy business owners to raise the prices of their goods and services, which means. . . .


Wait, the Bush tax breaks didn't lead to any price decrease, so methinks your logic is faulty.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I'd rather be a Jackass Leftist that thinks those that can afford to pay a little more should; Rather than be a Douchebag Righty that just wants the poor to die quietly so they don't disrupt their leisure.


edit on 11-7-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd
 
And a further tax increase will just cause the wealthy business owners to raise the prices of their goods and services, which means. . . .


Wait, the Bush tax breaks didn't lead to any price decrease, so methinks your logic is faulty.


Not to mention all those jobs the tax breaks on the rich were supposed to create...what happened to those?

It's amazing that there are people so dense that they will continue to argue that tax breaks on the rich are good for all of us...when we have decades of proof that it didn't work out.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Buisnesses and corporations squeeze every dime out of workers to make record profits and then whine about having to pay higher wages. Those golden parachutes are made by weaving together the skin of dead old people.
edit on 11-7-2012 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by beezzer
 


Buisnesses and corporations squeeze every dime out of workers to make record profits and then whine about having to pay higher wages. Those golden parachutes are made by weaving together the skin of dead old people.


Well said.

Corporate profits are good these days according to most statistics, but it doesn't translate to much, outside of the size of another yacht or mansion.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd
 
And a further tax increase will just cause the wealthy business owners to raise the prices of their goods and services, which means. . . .

The poor and the middle class will be paying for the tax increase.



Closing loopholes to ensure that the top 0.1% pay a fair amount of tax wont have any effect on goods and services bought and paid for by the man in the street.

Plenty of non US companies would take advantage of any such spiteful stupidity and quickly fill the demand.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
From the OP's source.....first paragraph as a matter of fact.



though the agency said the very richest have seen their share of taxes fall the last few years.


How do they define the "very richest"?

This piece is complete garbage. Their premise MAY be correct, but the contradictions within it leave one to questions it's validity.
edit on 11-7-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by FreeFromTheHerd
 
And a further tax increase will just cause the wealthy business owners to raise the prices of their goods and services, which means. . . .


Wait, the Bush tax breaks didn't lead to any price decrease, so methinks your logic is faulty.


Why should it have caused a price decrease? It led to increased profits and hiring.

But not decreases.

YOUR logic is faulty.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:20 PM
link   
You folks can whine and complain all you want, but the wealthy aren't going to "take one for the team".


Prices will go up in proportion to the tax increases.

When you and I and everyone else are paying more for the same goods and services, thank Obama and a liberal.

THEY made it happen.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join