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

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


So I guess you are completely against everything that has made the US successful.

High tax rates on corporations worked fine in the sixties. I guess you consider the WWII gen to be a bunch of socialists.

Maybe you can explain why you think the US middle class should be footing the bill for the ICBers global empire.

Originally posted by mrnotobc
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

Yeah none of the democrats are rich, and besides they're democrats so they're all honest and good.

You frickin Idiot

a true sign of intelligence is resorting to name calling. real internet tough guy.

reply to post by conspiracy nut

Beohner comes from a blue collar background while Dems like Pelosi and Feinstein are centa-millionaires so your argument needs tweaking.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by TheWrightWing
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

It couldn't be that the "1%" pay well over 40% of all Federal Taxes, could it?

But they earn about 70% of the wealth.

Don't tell me that's fair.

Stop punishing success!

The USA is NOT Greece.

The sequester has introduced a new idea to Washington D.C.

Spend less at the U.S. Government. Then approve the Keystone Pipeline and GROW the

private sector instead.

Joy and prosperity in the private sector will replace the Doom & Gloom in Washington D.C.

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

You need to consider that these cuts just bring us back down to 2009 spending levels. The Federal Goverment needs to rein it in my man!

You dont get to have our FN guns, and its already unfair that what I pay in goes right back out as a EIC credit. Next time you are rude to someone at the Walmart remember that they might have paid for that new car of yours, not the Federal Goverment!

The GOP did end the Bush era Tax cuts for those making $250,000 or higher. This is not enough for the WH as they just want a blank check and expect us to lay down and pay for it. How is that ok? I think you should be askig why they will cut education before touching foriegn aid to Israel et al!

I guess the 15 million people that live in Israel really need the billions in US aid every year, but really should we put their needs before our own?

edit on 4-3-2013 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)

True or False

The U.S. Government will spend $15 Billion more money in 2013 than it did in 2012.

TAX BILLS FOR RICH FAMILIES APPROACH 30-YEAR HIGH

With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.



hosted.ap.org...

reply to post by poet1b


Got it. You have no idea how significance testing works and what the phrase "not strong" means in the context of statistics. It's not like a magnet that weakly alters the number, it means there is nothing consistent about the results so the correlation can't be established. This is covered when you learn about null hypothesis testing.

Glad you cleared up that you are using factoid nuggets via rectal extraction. To think you can vote while never actually having to understand something is really disturbing.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


All arguments reduce to questioning is it fair for a few to reap disproportionate profits from the efforts of the many and keep taking more because they can afford to corrupt the process? The "don't tax the wealthy" crowd think it's fair. I think they haven't thought it through and have a knee jerk reaction for freedom at all costs.

The discussion isn't about communism yet, it's about returning to a proportionate wealth distribution model where folks get paid fairly for what they do, not get stiffed for performing 80% better than they did when they were being paid more.

I think mildly "socialistic" laws would be better than mass civil unrest. Unfortunately, people don't usually do the right thing on their own.

What and who would suffer if wealth distribution laws of some shade were implemented?
It seems everyone in our society would benefit... and to those who oppose this, wouldn't the wealthy just work harder to make up the wealth they "lost" to fairly pay people?

And when we live in a closed system, as Earth is, can everyone just do what they want with no thought to others? Fair is fair.

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...

clearly Obama's fault...

Originally posted by TauCetixeta

Stop punishing success!

The USA is NOT Greece.

The sequester has introduced a new idea to Washington D.C.

Spend less at the U.S. Government. Then approve the Keystone Pipeline and GROW the

private sector instead.

Joy and prosperity in the private sector will replace the Doom & Gloom in Washington D.C.

But this is America...where people complain about stuff they have, stuff they don't have, stuff they'll never have and even stuff that other people get..regardless of any direct impact to them

Originally posted by TXRabbit

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...

clearly Obama's fault...

Insider trading is LEGAL !

Stand back DOJ ! We are exempt!

reply to post by GreenGlassDoor


Yeah, I know a great deal about statistical testing and the phrase "not strong" means there is evidence of correlation, but not strong enough to be conclusive.

In other words, it looks like there is a correlation, but it can not be confirmed. When it comes to statistics, this is the same as saying we don't know, throw in the politics, and the statement is meaningless.

What we do know is that historically, when tax rates were higher on the super rich, the US economy did bette, and the statistical analysis is inconclusive, but there is some indication of a correlation.

And I have yet to see your analysis of the chart you put up, which tells me you hat threw it on the thread without understanding what you are looking at. Where is the link to the data?

people have pointed out that given higher taxes the rich will go to places where they can keep more of their money, even if that means moving to a communist country. well inevitably those countries will catch on as well and then where will the rich go? they don't seem to understand that paying people a fair living wage is beneficial to all, would bring more americans into a higher standard of living, so that the rest of america is not living in crappy conditions a la detroit, south side of chicago etc etc.

screw giving the rich higher taxes, how about the uber wealthy and corporations stop focusing on becoming insanely wealthy and hoarding the profits and wealth and try and build a future where all our fellow americans can prosper?

bring back the jobs at fair wages and i believe it will stop america from becoming one huge ghetto. the article states that if the average americans salary remained on par with inflation and the economy the average american worker would be making 92,000 a year, that would translate into more tax revenue for the united states and i'm sure it would get some of those "lazy welfare queens" of their butts and to work!!!

for those of you that say if you dont like your pay work harder and go back to school etc etc. that still doesn't solve the problem of poverty, without the lower jobs being paid a living wage there will always be poverty.

i do not live in poverty, i actually have it made compared to most. so it's not just about me or woe is me, i am concerned about my fellow americans decreasing standard of living. what good is it if i am doing so well but people are straving so much they will be willing to kill me for mine? i am not so well off that i could afford armed guards or live in a gated community.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


U are wrong because the people that control government are the .000001% not the 2% that Obama wants you to believe. They are exempt from taxes. They want more taxes because they get the government contracts and subsidies. You don't even understand what is going on.

The whole rich vs. poor is a Marxist concept. The right and left paradigm is a scam to manipulate the way u think. The elites have always funded both parties. How else do u think Obama can afford a 40 million dollar house in Hawaii on a 300k salary. This is all a scarm to keep people poor and dependent on government, destroy destroy their competitors through taxation. This is how they can buy out their competitors for pennies on the dollar and monopolize the economy.

You need to study or read more to understand the game. From what i can tell you don't fully understand the real agenda. It's not your fault though u've been influence by the globalist control media. These people are not dumb as u think, they are very intelligent people who graduated from the best school money can buy, they are experts at social engineering.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


I think you identify an obvious problem - wage disparity - but your solution is missing the mark. The first thing we need to do is end deficit spending. Then and only then can we begin to fix the problem. The FED, having a mandate of keeping STABLE prices, touts success when they have 1-2% inflation. Last time I checked 1-2% does not equal stable. Yes, prices are going to increase and decrease based on supply and demand, but that should be the primary factor - - not the amount of "money" in circulation. That inflation in the money supply is what creates the price increases on those pesky necessities such as energy and food. The middle and lower classes clearly get hit the hardest when those things increase as they have less disposable income. And simple math will show that the prices must increase as more money is injected into the economy. There is simply more money chasing the same number of goods....prices must rise. And the money getting injected into the economy isn't getting into the hands of those in need. It is an obvious fix to the problem - - however it is extremely politically unpopular. It will happen eventually - - the math cares not who is in power. We can take our painful dose of medicine now or we can take the unpredictable and catastrophic dosage somewhere in the not too distant future. I would prefer to take the hit now, balance a budget, determine what the government will spend our tax dollars on (and not a penny more), and then move forward. Programs will get cut, people will lose jobs, there will be pain. But it is the reality of our situation.

reply to post by TauCetixeta


So in other words, you vote for the bankers controlling the planet.

Return to the dark ages, except instead of a king, we will have a CEO who runs our lives.

No thanks.

The top 20% of income earners pay over 70% of the tax burden. What is this "do not tax the wealthy" garbage?

reply to post by amfirst1


thanks for the civil reply. i do not know it all or claim to, i am just a frustrated american that demands answers and is sick of the wage disparity and being price gouged while the corporations and politicians are sitting pretty at our expense.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Bill Clinton balanced the budget?... It is because of Bill Clinton that we are in great part in this economic mess, as it was because of him that people who could not afford to pay loans for mortgages were given loans which caused the housing bubble which set in motion the economic crisis... Not to mention that Clinton was known to sell military secrets to the Chinese, meanwhile cuting the budget of our own military which caused our saliors/soldiers to be overworked since we didn't have enough personnel, nor funds...

Nice try to twist the facts...

Originally posted by jjkenobi
The top 20% of income earners pay over 70% of the tax burden. What is this "do not tax the wealthy" garbage?

These people have been brainwahsed to believe that "the wealthy do not pay taxes and we must make them pay more"...

It is the same old tactic to brainwash the people into thinking that giving more power to the state/government in order to go after the "evil capitalists" will solve anything, when in fact it was the leftwinger policies being implemented that have been causing all these problems...

The same old LIES from the old socialists/communists is the same lie the new socialists/communists are repeating today thinking people have forgotten the truth...

BTW, I am not advocating the corruption that is rampant in government, but who is at fault for this?... Who was it that gave power over the U.S. economy to the Feds, and funded the "progressive taxes and the IRS as it exists today among other "leftwing policies"?... Progressive Democrats, under Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson in 1913...