Quit Complaining -- $100K-Plus Earners Pay 72% of Federal Income Taxes

200Plus
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

 

Where I get lost is how their "share" is greater than everyone else's. And do the poor have no share at all?

You seem to want them to pay 70%-90% of their income as their share but then you want them to have no additional benefits to go along with that sacrifice.

Would you be willing to give up 70-90% of your income for no return?

That's a brilliant question indeed !!

I often wondered what they are oh-so-proud of.

Some people truly have a problem justifying their very existence.

[ waiting for answers from the gallery ]

200Plus
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

 

Where I get lost is how their "share" is greater than everyone else's. And do the poor have no share at all?

You seem to want them to pay 70%-90% of their income as their share but then you want them to have no additional benefits to go along with that sacrifice.

Would you be willing to give up 70-90% of your income for no return?

Let's see.......

I already do give up about 70% to 90% of my income to the wealthy.

Rent, utilities, gas, insurance, medical expenses. It is very wealthy people who dictate the pricing on these things, and thus, dictate the amount of my paycheck that goes for these things. So, the rich already get my money.

Given that the rich buy politicians and thus, the public policy and laws that dictate all this, I'd say they are getting beyond their return in taxes.

70-90% taxes? Try more like 50% max for the rich. If I was making a cool million dollars a year, then yeah, I'm not going to bitch about bringing home 500k of that. With 500k is more than enough for me to own a modest home, pay my bills, and have plenty of money left over for saving and investment.

reply to post by Domo1


Well those numbers do seem lopsided but probably accurate.

I wonder if Tom thanked Bob ?

I wonder what Tom will do when Bob says "I quit".

reply to post by xuenchen


Why should Tom thank Bob for what is ultimately pocket change to him?

Given that Bob makes so much money because he pays Tom a pittance for his work, it is only fair he makes up the rest in some other way. Maybe if Bob started paying Tom a proportionate wage, then Tom could contribute more.

But so long as Bob wants to pay his employees substandard, inflation ignoring wages, Tom is going to continue to need his family subsidized if they want to eat, be sheltered from the elements, and his kids go to school.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


But what would Tom do without Bob?

Is it Bob's fault that Tom can't seem to find his way out that paper bag that's over his head?

Is it all Bob's fault that Tom's cardboard box is leaking?

Some nerve eh.

reply to post by liejunkie01


You're getting close.

It's called "income" tax however, if person one needs a job done and person two does the job for x amount - that is the value that the market has placed on the job, so.... it is an even trade - there was no "income". They both broke even.

BUT, if person one makes a profit off of the result of person two's labor - THAT is income. Or if person two saves and buys some property , lets it appreciate and then sells it for a profit - that is income as well.

The equitable exchange of your time and skills for money should not be called income as nothing has been gained, just traded.

xuenchen
I wonder what Tom will do when Bob says "I quit".

Quit what?

Even if he could somehow quit, why would he forgo almost $2,900 a week?

I don't think Bob will be quiting anytime soon, even if he continues to complain.

“If you feed horses enough oats, it will pass through their digestive systems and their droppings will provide enough leftover oats to feed the sparrows.”
– John Kenneth Galbraith

daskakik

xuenchen
I wonder what Tom will do when Bob says "I quit".

Quit what?

Even if he could somehow quit, why would he forgo almost $2,900 a week?

I don't think Bob will be quiting anytime soon, even if he continues to complain.

But think again.

What if Bob decides he's had enough and hides all his money and quits paying Tom.

What if Bob gets fed up with throwing scraps in the street and watching Tom scream "It's not good enough".

What an attitude eh.

rupertg
“If you feed horses enough oats, it will pass through their digestive systems and their droppings will provide enough leftover oats to feed the sparrows.”
– John Kenneth Galbraith

LOL

Good way to put it into perspective.

reply to post by xuenchen

Who's attitude, Bob's?

He's not paying Tom or throwing scraps into the street for Tom to pick up.

Tom, at least from the numbers posted by Domo, is also paying.

xuenchen
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

 

But what would Tom do without Bob?

Is it Bob's fault that Tom can't seem to find his way out that paper bag that's over his head?

Is it all Bob's fault that Tom's cardboard box is leaking?

Some nerve eh.

Well, let's see,

Without Bob, the system that benefited Bob so overwhelming is gone, along with Bob's control of all the wealth. Bob might own the company Tom works for, but Bob's actual contribution of any worthwhile work is minimal, so Bob's absence isn't going to be noticed. Tom and his fellows now have the chance to work out a new, more vibrant and living system.

It is Bob's fault Tom is living in a cardboard box, because Bob is paying Tom only enough to live in a cardboard box. On top of that, Bob does not even pay tom enough that he can afford to get duct tape to repair his cardboard box. Tom performs work vital to Bob's continued success, yet despite his contributions to Bob's operation, Tom is paid scraps.

Unfortunately for Tom, there really is no other alternative. All of Bob's buddies use the same system, so Tom's wages and benefits will be similar no matter where he goes. And since Bob's buddies pretty much own everything Bob doesn't own, Tom's options are limited. The only way to get ahead is to get into the scam Bob and his pals are running. Unfortunately, not everyone can be a Bob. Someone has to do the work to keep Bob rolling in the dough. Bob's success did not come from his work alone, but from the hard work of his employees. Bob wouldn't have squat if people weren't making money for him. And those people have their own lives to take care of.

If Bob actually gave his employees their fair share, and wasn't looking for different ways to screw them to increase his own wealth, then Tom wouldn't be living in a cardboard box, and leaking would not be a problem. Since Bob is putting the paper bag over Tom's head, well....nuff said.

daskakik
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Who's attitude, Bob's?

He's not paying Tom or throwing scraps into the street for Tom to pick up.

Tom, at least from the numbers posted by Domo, is also paying.

No Tom's prim & pritzy little attitude not "Bob's"

Tom pays nothing to support the underprivileged.

But Tom wants everything for nothing whenever he can get it.

And then has the nerve to snub his little snot nose up in the air.

reply to post by xuenchen

That is not what the numbers posted by Domo show.

In any case, Bob's money isn't being clipped by Tom.

xuenchen


No Tom's prim & pritzy little attitude not "Bob's"

Tom pays nothing to support the underprivileged.

But Tom wants everything for nothing whenever he can get it.

And then has the nerve to snub his little snot nose up in the air.

edit on Apr-15-2014 by xuenchen because:

Tom is not the one with the attitude problem. Tom IS the underprivileged, so he IS trying to support the underprivileged.

It is Bob who is getting everything for nothing. He is getting the blood, sweat, and tears of his many employees for a tiny fraction of the insane profits he gets from their work. But Bob STILL whines like a snot nosed brat because he has to pay anything at all! Bob would rather not have to pay anyone anything at all, and would favor slavery if he could get away with it. He practically does, in fact. Bob figures, that since Tom has the audacity to want to be paid fairly, Bob takes his operations to countries where slave labor and human abuse is not only the norm, but encouraged.

Bob is the one with the attitude problem, not Tom. Bob thinks he should be able to keep all the money his workers bust their butts for.

reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


But what if Bob is an accountant or an engineer and has no control what *his* boss does?

Is he a victim too?

And what if Bob is fed up with throwing hot dogs to every breadless pauper and then gets spit on for trying to help.

That's real gratitude ain't it.

Quit complaining because they get what they pay for, in case you missed this thread:

FyreByrd
Greetings all,

The authors of this historically important study are Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, and their article is titled "Testing Theories of American Politics." The authors clarify that the data available are probably under-representing the actual extent of control of the U.S. by the super-rich:

www.commondreams.org...

Have this to say:

"Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But, ..." and then they go on to say, it's not true, and that, "America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened" by the findings in this, the first-ever comprehensive scientific study of the subject, which shows that there is instead "the nearly total failure of 'median voter' and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories [of America]. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. "

The author of the article, Eric Zuesse, sums up:

The clear finding is that the U.S. is an oligarchy, no democratic country, at all. American democracy is a sham, no matter how much it's pumped by the oligarchs who run the country (and who control the nation's "news" media). The U.S., in other words, is basically similar to Russia or most other dubious "electoral" "democratic" countries. We weren't formerly, but we clearly are now. Today, after this exhaustive analysis of the data, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” That's it, in a nutshell.

Bread and circuses my friends, bread and circuses.

Just what is an oligarchy?

From Websters:

ol·i·gar·chy noun \ˈä-lə-ˌgär-kē, ˈō-\
: a country, business, etc., that is controlled by a small group of people

: the people that control a country, business, etc.

: government or control by a small group of people

www.merriam-webster.com...

Well we here all know that..... but I'd say :

plu·toc·ra·cy noun \plü-ˈtä-krə-sē\
: government by the richest people

: a country that is ruled by the richest people

: a group of very rich people who have a lot of power

www.merriam-webster.com...

... is much more accurate, especially as our Big Money owned Supreme Court has determined that money is equivalent to speak.

There has been a comspiracy going on - here in the USA - but it hasn't been hidden at all. It's been quietly working towards these goals for decades and started with (drum roll please) the "Powell Memo".

Thom Hartmann in an interview you can find here: truth-out.org...

...gives some background to the Powell Memo...

So by 1970, you had great social ferment: against the war, feminism (including the emergence of the pill), civil rights, marijuana use, the emergence of the hippies, the large-scale emergence of alternative religious beliefs, the beginning of the gay-rights movement. Virtually every sector of society except old rich white guys was in open revolt. On top of that, to make it really frightening for the conservatives whose highest priority is the financial consolidation of wealth, Rachel Carson wrote the book that began the environmental movement - and Ralph Nader ignited the consumer movement.

and then states the strategy in the Powell memo (see reference for more):

Powell laid out a strategy for the conservatives in the memo: Dial back the power of the middle class; dial back the financial stability of the middle class, and restore the role of the wealthy at the center of power to regulate society - and prevent the country from lurching in other directions.

and he was rewarded for this with:

Just a short time after he wrote the memo, Richard Nixon put him on the Supreme Court, where he was in a position to implement parts of his memo. This included particularly legally empowering the corporate world and the wealthy.

I've known this was happening most of my life and in the last decade this "strategy" has become flagrant. What I don't understand is why everyday citizens support these policies and people that concentrate power and wealth in the hands of the very few and destroy the lives and livelihoods of millions of people.

US is a oligarchy.....

Are you a member of the elite or just blinded by the propaganda?

LDragonFire
Are you a member of the elite or just blinded by the propaganda?

Just skimming his arguments, I'd bet he's trolling but there being no limits on the capacities of human ignorance it could go either way.

One of the reasons I never bother posting more than once or twice in a thread any more, all the open minded discussions end after that many, anything else is a waste of time.