Democratic Myth No. 2: Those who have done well should pay their fair share

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Democratic Myth No. 2: Those who have done well should pay their fair share

With all the debate about just who should be paying taxes, this article seems to have some facts at least.

Apparently "The Rich" in fact do pay the majority of taxes.

The argument to tax higher incomes at higher rates may be flawed.

I looks like higher rates won't even be enough to cover the wild spending and pay off the National Debt.



Editor’s Note: This analysis the second in a five-part series on Democrats’ mythical sound bites by Andrew Puzder, an economic adviser to Mitt Romney and CEO of CKE Restaurants, which employs about 21,000 workers. The first installment was entitled, “Democratic Myth No. 1: GOP Is to Blame for Failure of Obama’s Job Policies.”



President Obama has repeatedly attempted to frame the debate over increasing federal revenue and reducing the deficit as a simple matter: Just raise taxes on people who have been successful. To use the President’s precise phrasing: “All I’m saying is that those who have done well, including me, should pay their fair share in taxes.”

This sound bite sounds so good that one is tempted to simply agree without ever questioning the president’s underlying assumption that the successful among us are not already paying their fair share. Or, that increasing tax rates on the successful is the same as increasing tax revenues. Neither assumption reflects reality. As is the case with every Democratic sound bite, the president is counting on it being so appealing that most Americans will accept what he says rather than see it for the myth that it is. In fact, he is counting on people believing the myth even when faced with facts to the contrary......

Democratic Myth No. 2: Those who have done well should pay their fair share


How WILL they pay the debt anyway ?



Facts ?

Higher income, greater tax burden

So, what is the reality? We currently have a progressive tax system where those with more income pay a greater share of their income in taxes. In 2009 (the most recent year for which we have such data), the top 1 percent of taxpayers (those earning over $344,000) earned 17 percent of adjusted gross income but paid 37 percent of all federal income taxes, more than twice their share of national income. That seems very unfair to the 1 percent and like a very good deal for the other 99 percent.

The top 5 percent (those earning over $155,000) earned 32 percent of adjusted gross income but paid 59 percent of all federal income taxes. In other words, the top 5 percent paid more in income taxes than the remaining 95 percent combined. Again, hardly unfair to the other 95 percent. The top 10 percent (those earning over $112,000) earned 43 percent of adjusted gross income but paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes. On the other hand, the bottom 50 percent earned 13.5 percent of adjusted gross income and paid 2.5 percent of all federal income taxes.

While much depends on your definition of “fair,” the wealthy already pay substantially more than their proportional share of taxes and perhaps more than many would objectively consider their “fair share.” Why President Obama feels that “those who have done well” are failing to pay their fair share is, shall we say, unclear.



+28 more 
posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

Apparently "The Rich" in fact do pay the majority of taxes.




It is also apparent that they make the majority of money, they also are the ones directly lobbying
the government and they are ones who control the private sector policies which govern all of our
lives.

The day the elite convinced the poor to cry for them, is the day America lost it's way.


+11 more 
posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


It’s been stated many times that even if the fed took 100% of the income of everyone earning over $1million per year it would only float the spending for a matter of days and would do nothing to solve the federal debt.

We don’t have a tax problem….we have a spending problem. This topic is simply being used (as it always has) for political gain.

S&F



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Is not all taxes just reinvested with the 1% anyways


Just a big cycle where the tax money is indirectly invested in mediums that promote further prosperity for the upper echelons of society.


+6 more 
posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by xuenchen
 


It’s been stated many times that even if the fed took 100% of the income of everyone earning over $1million per year it would only float the spending for a matter of days and would do nothing to solve the federal debt.

We don’t have a tax problem….we have a spending problem. This topic is simply being used (as it always has) for political gain.

S&F


We do have a tax problem.

The budget was working until Bush gave unfunded tax cuts and started two new wars, without
accounting for both in the budget.

You are using it for political gain.


+18 more 
posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


The entire subject predicates upon statistical anomalies.

If you make a fortune and pay, say $200,000.00 in taxes. While I make a pittance and only pay $2,000.00. You have obviously paid more than me. But You're left, with say $50,000,000 to live on, where I'm left with $50,000.

(These numbers are NOT accurate - just abstractions for example).

Now the government comes along and says "Bad news folks, budget fell short. We need people to pitch in a bit more to right the ship - the ship we are ALL sailing in!" and you say "Go bug Heff, he only paid one tenth what I did.

The problem is that I've only got enough left to pay my bills and eat.

But whatever. Life is life. Cest la vie'. Only... Instead of it getting left there. Now I wake up to find that YOU are walking the decks of the ship screaming that MY FAILURE TO PITCH IN is what is sinking the ship.

That's the analog and that's why so many are enraged right now. If the ship is sinking, you don't pick the weak ones to start bailing - you start with the strongest as your core of labor and then let the weaker folks pitch in as they can. As they are able.

~Heff
edit on 10/1/12 by Hefficide because: typo



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


In theory you are right Heff......unfortunately it seems that our wonderful politicians always seem to put loopholes in the laws that allow the FILTHY rich to walk away paying less than the average joe who bust his/her hump to just keep a roof over their families heads..........

The problem with taxes isn't solely upon the wealthy, but the government scumbags who line their pockets with dirty money, while they watch those who blindly elected them into office suffer!



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


Oh to be sure. The reason that the ship is sinking in the first place is that the Politicians got greedy and sold off much of the planking and sub structure to begin with.

And, ironically, they're the ones who are now giving the orders and asking us all to make it right! I'm willing to pitch in and bail water.

Are the wealthy?

If so, then awesome! We can get things right and then we can all gang up and punish those responsible and take steps to make sure the future folks in charge have much more supervision and culpability.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
There are a lot of Democratic myths.

Those who get the most benefits from tax revenue pay the least in see SS,Medicare,Medcaid.

Now some people find it totally logically to make those who aren't using those programs or even need them to pay for those who are.

For a group of people who scream civil rights all day long when it comes to a certain group who isnt LGBT the well to do have no rights.

The Democrats always try to have it both ways considering all those millionaire,and billionaires in their party.

Sick and freaking tired of this fair share crap when 47% is not paying their fair share.

Last thought.www.politico.com... read it and weep.

Every needs a dog in that hunt instead of nickle and diming a minority to extinction.
edit on 1-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
There are a lot of Democratic myths.

Those who get the most benefits from tax revenue pay the least in see SS,Medicare,Medcaid.

Now some people find it totally logically to make those who aren't using those programs or even need them to pay for those who are.

For a group of people who scream civil rights all day long when it comes to a certain group who isnt LGBT the well to do have no rights.

The Democrats always try to have it both ways considering all those millionaire,and billionaires in their party.

Sick and freaking tired of this fair share crap when 47% is not paying their fair share.

Last thought.www.politico.com... read it and weep.

Every needs a dog in that hunt instead of nickle and diming a minority to extinction.
edit on 1-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


The well to do have no rights???

The have the same right as you or me, plus they have money...

I wonder why we don't hear rich people begging to switch places with people like me?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by campanionator
 



We do have a tax problem.

The budget was working until Bush gave unfunded tax cuts and started two new wars, without
accounting for both in the budget.

You are using it for political gain.


I beg your pardon.

The top 10% of wage earners pay 71% of all the taxes collected…..we already have a progressive tax system. If the idiots in DC would make a realistic budget and stop spending so much we’d have a huge surplus right now.

We have a spending problem.



+19 more 
posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Oddly, Ronald Reagan assured us that everything you mentioned would take care of itself if we just embraced deregulation! The rich would get even richer... and in their joy over having gotten richer, they'd happily raise wages, create new jobs, and do all they could to pay back the country that allowed them to become so prosperous!

The reality? They got greedier, stingier, outsourced the jobs, moved their own finances overseas to tax havens and left the rest of us to drown in debt.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   


That's the analog and that's why so many are enraged right now. If the ship is sinking, you don't pick the weak ones to start bailing - you start with the strongest as your core of labor and then let the weaker folks pitch in as they can. As they are able.
reply to post by Hefficide
 
It would be okay if it wasn't for the fact that while the "strongest" are trying to bail out the ship the Captain is sitting in his cabin with his first mate eating and drinking the food and rum rations from everyone! Every bit of new legislation or rule thrown down from a department of whatever chips away at whatever monies come in. More IRS agents for Obama care, new inspectors for the dept of energy all extra burdens at a time where you are looking for more bang for your buck. The increasing of taxes on the supposed 1% {funny why the slogan isn't the 5%} just may make them decide to take their toys somewhere else. The root problem has not been addressed, what would be done without taxing the higher income earners? If they leave what would be done then?
edit on 1-10-2012 by hangedman13 because: dunno



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by hangedman13
 


Actually I did address that, indirectly, in my first or second post in this thread. Once we bail ourselves out of this mess, then we can fix the system and the folks in charge of it. Make them more accountable, more scrutinized and repair the structure of the ship.

Some see the FED as the issue. Others see regulatory agencies. I see it as corrupt politicians and lobbying practices that are, quite literally and blatantly bribery. We have a mercenary legislature and mercenaries are not well known for their caring hearts and concern for their fellow man.

Let's get some integrity and honesty in place - and then we can begin addressing which parts of the systems work and which don't.

But, for now. either we bail or we sink. And I don't see many lifeboats. Welcome to the USA Titanic.

Is the bank band playing on deck yet?

~Heff
edit on 10/1/12 by Hefficide because: Freudian typo - so I ran with it



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


There was a hell of a lot of de-regulation under Clinton that put the last nails in Glass Stegall, and Americans have outsourced, and move funds offshore long before Reagan and Bush.

I agree people have gotten greedier, but anyone only placing that characteristic on the evil rich?

Hmmm better take a closer look.

.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


A question from neither side of the aisle with a few background notes:

Note 1. The US government borrows money from the Fed at interest.

Note 2. Those working in the US pay income tax to pay that interest, not so much the initial capital.

Note 3. The majority of the money used to pay for Federal services is that initial capital.

Note 4. Those who benefit the most from this arrangement are the ones who supply the most money to 'our' candidates.

www.youtube.com...

Question. Do those in the uppermost brackets benefit most by trying to squeeze blood from a rock or maintaining the status quo?
edit on 1-10-2012 by ABNARTY because: sp



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Are you implying that Clinton isn't rich?

I could be wrong, as I'm suffering through either allergies or a major cold today - and the weather here is wet and rainy ( not good when one is feeling badly ) but I don't recall making it a partisan issue specifically. Just a class based one.

If I did use the terms "Republican" or "Democrat" in this thread, then by all means I do apologize and will self correct by stating that my intention was more "rich" vs "middle class" rather than specific party.

Signed... A guy who voted for Reagan twice, Bush I, and Bush II.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I was stating that deregulation is a "dirty word" when a Republican does it for the most part and the Democrats have a long history of it themselves.

The Democrat years that myth that love to perpetuate as "being golden" is just that a myth.

There are rich righties and lefties but the stigma is only evil when they are righties.
edit on 1-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by campanionator
 



We do have a tax problem.

The budget was working until Bush gave unfunded tax cuts and started two new wars, without
accounting for both in the budget.

You are using it for political gain.


I beg your pardon.

The top 10% of wage earners pay 71% of all the taxes collected…..we already have a progressive tax system. If the idiots in DC would make a realistic budget and stop spending so much we’d have a huge surplus right now.

We have a spending problem.



Wage earners?

Top 10% hold nearly 90% of all stock and bonds, that is not wage work.

The Idiots in DC did have a realistic budget, until the GOP, pro elite idiots botched in up so they
could pay off their corporate donors.

I bet your the kind fellow who crashes you're car and blames the road for the damage.
edit on 1-10-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
People really do need to understand what regulation is-sanctions that is an accepted form of economic warfare, and the largest creator of wealth disparity that is the talking point for some.

We have all seen how well sanctions have worked, we have all see how well regulation has worked even tho most will never admit it.

Regulation/sanctions are designed to break the back of the economy even tho they are spun differently they both have the same outcome.


The both stifle growth, and productivity, that create jobs,that also create wealth, that in turn create tax revenue to the point of the current state of the union.

There are more people consuming the wealth of others than generating their own that makes them dependent upon government.

That same government who is currently regulating/sanctioning the American citizen and what is the new talking point?

The rich should pay their fair share which means more sanctioning that has the opposite effect of the intended purpose.

I really do wish people would wake up to the fact of what regulation is-------sanctions.
edit on 1-10-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



new topics
top topics
 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join