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.
Originally posted by Jetman44
The median personal wealth for members of Congress grew to $911,510 in 2009, up from $785,515 in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Nearly half of the members of Congress are millionaires.
usgovinfo.about.com...
Originally posted by Fiscal
reply to post by enament
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need...
Think I've heard that tune before. Oh, right! Marx. Why don't you just come out and say that people should not live according to their standards? Obviously, their purchasing decisions should be made by someone else. But who?
So, we start with giving up that right to someone else (the pursuit of happiness) and how far else are we willing to go in the name of fairness?
Originally posted by jimmiec
They did raise taxes on the wealthy. Where have you been?
Originally posted by darkbake
I am fairly certain that Republican politicians don't want to raise taxes on the wealthy because they have deals with them / are owned by them / work for them.
A new study from the Congressional Research Service - a non-partisan government group that provides analysis to Congress - will likely fuel the already bitter political fight.The report concludes that tax cuts for the rich don't seem to be associated with economic growth and instead are linked to a different outcome: greater income inequality in the U.S.
Here are two graphs of the top 0.1 percent and 0.01 percent. The first shows average tax rates for the highest-income taxpayers since 1945 has been dropping. The second graph shows that during the same period, the richest American families captured a greater and greater share of total income.
The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%. Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s; today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.
However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.
Under the program, the Christie administration has granted more than $900 million in state tax credits over 10 years to 15 companies, including Panasonic, Goya, Prudential and Campbell’s Soup.
Another agreement has also stirred criticism. In February 2011, the state approved a $42 million tax break for Campbell’s Soup to renovate its longtime headquarters in Camden and add new jobs.
Campbell’s then announced in June that it would eliminate 130 jobs in Camden
So called 'progressive' tax structures just create such complexity in the codes that the result is nobody understands it and those with influence can corrupt it in their favour over time.
Originally posted by poet1b
It is a well established fact that when the super rich pay higher taxes, the country and the econnomy do better.
Per capita GDP is sometimes used as an indicator of standard of living as well, with higher per capita GDP being interpreted as having a higher standard of living.
Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by justwokeup
A flat tax is not a fair tax. All it does is make the poor even more poor. A person making less is going to be hit a lot harder than someone making more at a flat tax rate.
A bunny that makes 10 carrots a year vs a bunny that makes 100 carrots a year.
Let's say there is a 50% flat tax.
The bunny making 10 carrots is left with 5 while the bunny with a 100 carrots is let with 50.
One of those bunnies are going to starve to death, and it isn't going to be the "rich" bunny.
Calling the flat tax a "fair tax" is complete double speak.
So called 'progressive' tax structures just create such complexity in the codes that the result is nobody understands it and those with influence can corrupt it in their favour over time.
Not really. It could be very simple if normal people actually wrote it.edit on 3-3-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)edit on 3-3-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)