I figured out why Boehner and the republicans do not want to tax the wealthy.

reply to post by conspiracy nut



are you suggesting that Pelosi and other Democrats, making the same money as the Republican reps.....for some reason just do not figure out that they themselves "rich" & part of the 1% elites

there seems to be a disconnect taking place... Boehner & republicans see themselves as targets of tax hikes on the affluent
where democrats & Reid ... (see: Harry Reid Net Worth

Harry Reid is a senior U.S. Senator and a member of the Democratic Party, as
well as an attorney at law and has a net worth of $5 million. -...
www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/democrats/harry-reid-net-worth/
do not lump themselves with the rich elites ??

Naw... Boehner & republicans see the democrats as raising taxes on the affluent while (at the same time) upping their spending programs by more than the proposed tax increases. thats all !


The Republicans are holding fast to Spending Cuts first.... then perhaps future tax increases to the affluent can be floated to Congress....
the Democrats however see the tax rates over in the EU and especially in the Nordic... and figure that American wealthy have it easy over here... they expect to have $2Trillion annual entitlements and 80% wealth confiscation on the wealthy & elites to make it seem on paper that the deficits are reasonable for the society we have


no child, punk, deviant, sociopath....etc.... should be left behind ... according to the 'progressives'

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Because they are wealthy?? because they are funded by the wealthy??

If they really cared about our finances they would cut their own wages but they would much rather cut ours

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor


What do you think you chart proves? How about an analysis?

From what I see, your chart makes no sense at all. Percentage change has to take into consideration values being considered.

Look at the two most prosperous time for the US, the sixties and the nineties. Tax rates were higher, wages were higher, considerably higher in the sixties, and the economy was far more stable.

When you consider Germany, look at how much more stable their economy is, and how much more time they have off work.

reply to post by votan


i am not denying that both sides are messed up. democrats are not making sufficient budget cuts and republicans want to cut everything but the kitchen sink. neither side could negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag!

i apologize for getting caught up in the partisanship crap. americans need to stop going at each others throats, the ultra wealthy, corporations etc need to bring the jobs back, pay americans wages that reflect inflation, quit the price gouging etc etc. republicans need to stop villainizing the poor and vice versa. aside from the percieved partisanship in the article there are some very good points in it that are hard to deny. please read the article if you choose to reply to the thread.

reply to post by St Udio


Most of what the federal government spends almost exclusively benefits the super rich, their global empire, slave labor trading rights, support of illegals for domestic slave labor, stiff regulation of the individual, restriction of small business.

Where were you over the last decade when Wall Street Bankers robbed the US economy.

Raising taxes on the rich to pay off the huge debts created to support the global corporate empire isn't re-distributing the wealth, it is re-re-distributing the wealth stolen by the corporate bankers.

reply to post by poet1b




Judging by your response you don't understand what GDP per capita indicates or the importance of delta functions (change between data points).

If your assertion was true and there was a strong correlation between high taxes and growth then when taxes go up so would the rate of change in a positive direction, as would the opposite. The magnitude of the change can alter, but the direction would move in either a positive or negative direction as a certain thing. It doesn't.

If it is true, prove it. You will have consistent results if it is a fact. Feel free to use any date range and countries as evidence. The gauntlet has been thrown. Show the correlation.

reply to post by justwokeup

You are living in a society with massive wealth inequality. Capitalism creates wealth inequality by default. Money makes money.

And a flat tax would do nothing but make it worse. If affects the people making the least the most, instead of the other way around, which is nonsensical.

At the moment the trust fund kid can probably get away with paying less as a % due to tax code shenanigans.

Capitalism will always have a special tax plan for the ones that can afford to pay off the government. So a flat tax wouldn't last long anyway.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

 

When you consider Germany, look at how much more stable their economy is, and how much more time they have off work.

Yes, and we all want to live in Germany.

It's all a ruse. The wealthiest of the wealthy, the ones who have bought and paid for the politicians, have protected their wealth through, loopholes, foundations, trusts, etc.

They pay the Dems and Repubs to put on a good show. Pitting one side versus the other via class warfare.

No matter which side "wins," the middle class people lose.

Ultimately, it is all about creating a dependent class to the wealthy.

Carbon Credits? Guess we'll need a credit from the government to pay our electric bill.

Health Care costs out of control? Government will completely run that soon too.

Republicans talk the opposite talk to Dems, just to give half the country a rooting interest. Then in the end, they sign off on the same money grabs.

Why quibble over a 36% vs. 39% tax rate?

The government doesn't need any of our money.

"Conservatives" have been duped into thinking that they've won a victory while still paying a third or more of their income into the Feds.

We didn't used to pay any taxes. This nation is rich in resources. Shouldn't we all get a cut? Who decided that big corporations get access to whatever they want, and the citizenry gets only to beg for a job like a handout?

Everyone blasted Alan Greenspan when he said that they didn't worry about debt because we could print the money tomorrow to pay it off. Everyone blasted him, but nobody listened.

The resources of this country and the potential productivity of its people are not going away. The present monetary system and taxation system is a scam put in place to control us and prevent us from recognizing our true power.

here is an idea, the wealthy could afford higher taxes if they stopped lobbying the politicians lol but of course not because that would mean the politicians would not have their interests i.e $$$ in mind.

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor


Rate of change means nothing when not correlated with real values, and considers lead and lag effects on change.

You can't even explain your own chart.

I have provided my evidence.

Once again, look at the periods when the US was the most prosperous, the sixties and the nineties.

Originally posted by schuyler
The wealthy are already taxed. The following figures are directly from the IRS for 2010.

100%: 139,960,580 returns paid taxes of $1,031,512mil for 100% AGI for 100% of taxes
Top 1%: 1,399,606 returns paid $392,149mil for 20.70% AGI for 38.02% of taxes
Top 5%: 6,998,029 returns paid $213,569mil for 34.73% AGI for 58.72% share
Top 10%: 13,996,068 returns paid $721,421mil for 45.77% AGI for 69.94% of taxes
Top 25%: 34,990,145 returns paid $890,614mil for 67.38% AGI for 86.34% of taxes
Top 50%: 69,980,290 returns paid $1,003,639mil for 87.25% AGI for 97.30% of taxes
Bottom 50%: 69,980,290 returns paid $27,783 mil for 12.75% AGI for 2.59% of taxes.

AGI = Adjusted Gross Income. So to put this in story problem form:

The top 1% earned 20.70% of the income, but paid 38.02% of all income taxes.
The top 5% earned 34.73% of the income, but paid 58.72% of all income taxes.
The top 10% earned 45.77% of the income, but paid 69.94% of all income taxes.
The top 25% earned 67.38% of the income, but paid 86.34% of all income taxes.
The top 50% earned 87.25% of the income, but paid 97.30% of all income taxes.
The bottom 50% earned 12.75% of the income, but paid 2.59% of all income taxes

Now let’s put that in perspective.

The top 1% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $380,354.
The top 5% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $159,619.
The top 10% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $113,799.
The top 25% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $67,280.
The top 50% means your adjusted gross income is at or above $33,048.
The bottom 50% means your adjusted gross income is below $33,048.

Now let's compare:

Top 1%: paid $392,149 million in taxes
Bottom 47%: $0.00 in taxes

Please don't pretend that the top 1% are not taxed or not taxed enough. They pay way more than anyone else already. They just provide a convenient whipping boy for envious "progressives," most of which are getting a free ride already.

Quick...
Can we agree money is infinite.....ok, with that out of the way a quick analogy:

There's $100 and four people. One person has 70 of the dollars while the other three fight over the remaining 30. All this is taking place in an apartment shared by the four. It costs $60 for them all to live there.

Of course the person who grabbed 70 of the dollars is going to pay more...does he even have a right to whine about it...HE HAS THE MAJORITY of the money so of course he will pay more.

Of course the top 1% pay more taxes than everyone else...they have more money than everyone else. In other words they own most of the money that circulates in America.

The problem is the 1% in connection with the analogy are saying everyone should only pay $10 in order to be FAIR. It has already been stated it costs $60 to live in their apartment however. So if everyone paid $10 (even though the three people would then have nothing) they STILL would be short of the rent.

So what's the answer?

reply to post by Gridrebel


The way things are going, we all will be living in Germany, or working for their corporations, about the same thing.

If we were smart we would be working those hours and taking those long vacations.

Originally posted by bjax9er
the rich will stay rich.

they don't tax the rich because it makes the poor poorer.

when have you ever been paid by a poor person?

taxing doesn't create jobs.
taxing doesn't create wealth.
growth
investment
innovation


you are being a marxist class warfare commie.
at the same time you are saying your not.

eat the rich.

obama wants you to eat the rich.
thats how the progressives will gain absolute control over you.

it's called marxist revolution...

Who do you think pays the rich? Do you think it is other rich people shopping in Walmart?

We will soon see that we have no choice but to eat the rich and let the money game start over. With the help of people such as yourself, the rich have used our government (paid for) to tilt the game heavily in their favor.

The rest of us are basically playing a game of Monopoly where every piece of property is owned. What's the use of working harder....all the pieces are owned. No matter what you roll you land on someones property and have to pay.

What do you do if you find yourself in such a situation? Either you man-up and flip the entire board over so the game restarts, Or you get up and walk off causing the game to end.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Why don't you just stop looking into the pockets of others? Who cares? The "rich" don't come into your house, rape your wife, and steal the change off the night stand.

Do you also go around bathrooms to examine the size of other mens penises? Do you get outraged when some has a bigger one? Do you also believe that since they have more in the meat department they should have more sex than you? No, of course you don't.

What you and the other "tax the rich" folks suffer from is Nietzche's "master-slave morality". He explains class envy quite well. I recommend reading it.

So let's talk solutions: many people are surprised when I explain that I am anti-job. I believe that every politician needs to be popped in the mouth when they talk of a jobs program. Simply, working for another is a debt system. You owe your livelihood to another. When people talk about Adam Smith and capitalism (I personally am a fan of Bastiat) they ignore that he wasn't talking about the workers of the pin factory, he was speaking about the pin factory as a production entity, which would only benefit the owner.

So here's the gag: if you can get a job somebody believes your labor/time has worth. If you work at a place then the owner believes your ability to produce on his behalf is worth more than what he is giving you as pay. Obviously your skillset generates him revenue.

Instead people should be interested in working for themselves and generating that profit they make for others for themselves. Yes, the overhead costs increase, but at least you're no longer a wage slave.

The rich would not be rich if we didn't earn and produce on their behalf.

To increase people generating business for their own interests would be to reduce and simplify taxes, as small business owners pay everything out of their check.

As you said, you're not a communist. Your thinking has been poisoned by them, though. They want to cry that it's not fair, while ignoring that nature is unfair, and demand they use the labors of others to make it right. A communist is a capitalist who lacks the self-confidence to see their own worth.

reply to post by poet1b


What did you provide? Oh, nothing's there.

Yes, I explained it. Twice. Your lack of comprehension is not for my lack of explanation.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
Poiliticans are part of the 1 percent the link is from forbes magazine, last i checked it was not a COMMUNIST magazine.

so this is why Boehner and the republicans refuse to budge on raising taxes on the wealthy, because they are amongst the wealthiest in america!!!!! kind of makes me give a little respect to Obama and the democrats, they are actually willing to take one for the team, unllike the republicans who would rather have the rest of us eat cake than god forbid pay more taxes.

edit on 2-3-2013 by conspiracy nut because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2013 by conspiracy nut because: (no reason given)

the Top 3 “richest” people in the country are all Democrats. This list includes: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett & Larry Ellison are all Democrats. Together, they are worth $126 Billion Dollars.

An analysis of the Top 20 Richest People in America (from Forbes Top 100) reveals that a full 60% are actually Democrats. Furthermore, if you look at it from a “family” point of view and not as individuals, that ratio widens even further to: 25% Republican / 75% Democrat.

The 10 Richest Members of Congress

1. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $294.21 Million
2. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $220.40 Million
3. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $193.07 Million
4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $81.63 Million
5. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $76.30 Million
6. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) $65.91 Million
7. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) $55.07 Million
8. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) $52.93* Million
9. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $45.39 Million
10. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) $44.21 Million


Obama isn't "taking" anything. And why is it that people keep conveniently forgetting that Obama and the democrats controlled the whole ball game for two years and could have raised taxes on the wealthy any day of the week. Huh, Huh......what have you got to say now?

reply to post by DZAG Wright


;ll tell you who has been paid by a poor person, walmart, exxon, mobil, shell, target, coca cola, mcdonalds etc etc etc etc

It shouldn't come as any surprise should it?
They won't bite the hand the feeds them

From page 3 of your source, to better explain your op

The Relationship of the Upper Classes and the Government It’s impossible to ignore the fact that 57 members of Congress, or roughly 11 percent, are members of the financial elite. Overall, 250 members of Congress are millionaires, and their median net worth accounts for roughly $891,000, or nine times that of the average American.

Asking politicians to enact changes that would reduce the wealth of the upper classes is a conflict of interests. It’s little wonder that tax cuts for the wealthy are repeatedly enacted while the reverse is so rarely true. People with high incomes want to keep the money that they have made, and this includes the men and women who control the country. It’s also important to remember that politicians are supported financially by the wealthy. In order to be elected, politicians of all levels require backing, and that backing generally comes from corporations.

It’s impossible to deny the link between politicians and corporations, and the link is consistent regardless of a person’s political leanings. Right or left, big or small, politicians rely on corporations; more importantly, they rely on the extremely wealthy executives of those corporations. With the majority of tax income coming in from the middle class — despite the progressive tax — and the government’s interests clearly mingling with the upper class, is there any question of why the income disparity continues to grow?

Originally posted by Gridrebel

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
Poiliticans are part of the 1 percent the link is from forbes magazine, last i checked it was not a COMMUNIST magazine.

so this is why Boehner and the republicans refuse to budge on raising taxes on the wealthy, because they are amongst the wealthiest in america!!!!! kind of makes me give a little respect to Obama and the democrats, they are actually willing to take one for the team, unllike the republicans who would rather have the rest of us eat cake than god forbid pay more taxes.

edit on 2-3-2013 by conspiracy nut because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2013 by conspiracy nut because: (no reason given)

the Top 3 “richest” people in the country are all Democrats. This list includes: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett & Larry Ellison are all Democrats. Together, they are worth $126 Billion Dollars.

An analysis of the Top 20 Richest People in America (from Forbes Top 100) reveals that a full 60% are actually Democrats. Furthermore, if you look at it from a “family” point of view and not as individuals, that ratio widens even further to: 25% Republican / 75% Democrat.

The 10 Richest Members of Congress

1. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) $294.21 Million
2. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) $220.40 Million
3. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) $193.07 Million
4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) $81.63 Million
5. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) $76.30 Million
6. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) $65.91 Million
7. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) $55.07 Million
8. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) $52.93* Million
9. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) $45.39 Million
10. Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) $44.21 Million


Obama isn't "taking" anything. And why is it that people keep conveniently forgetting that Obama and the democrats controlled the whole ball game for two years and could have raised taxes on the wealthy any day of the week. Huh, Huh......what have you got to say now?

out of all those people the only ones against tax increases for the wealthy are the republicans. kind of mutes your point.