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

[HereWeGoAgain]

Samuel Colt made all men equal ....so does working for a living.

 

[hunarcy]

Well, that'd be true except that we're really not recovering from the "Great Recession" as we should be and so people who might have been paid more can't find employment and are settling for minimum wage jobs.

We need to get away from Keynesian Economics and stop taking so much from people in taxes, so it can be circulated in the private sector instead of wasted in the public sector.

FDR used Keynesian economics to help down and out ordinary Americans after republicans worked their capitalist free market miracles in the 20's. It took generations but now the "miracle of capitalism and down with government and regulations" message is back.

Only if you forgetting the "free market miracle" of the Great Depression in 1929.

No thanks

I'm certainly not forgetting the prolonged pain of the New Deal's weak recovery until the beginning of WWII. I'm not ignoring the disaster that is Japan after almost 2 decades of Keynesian economics.

I'm not an advocate of Laissez-faire, either.

 

[nodoginnafight]

FDR used Keynesian economics to help down and out ordinary Americans after republicans worked their capitalist free market miracles in the 20's. It took generations but now the "miracle of capitalism and down with government and regulations" message is back.

Only if you forgetting the "free market miracle" of the Great Depression in 1929.

No thanks

I'm certainly not forgetting the prolonged pain of the New Deal's weak recovery until the beginning of WWII. I'm not ignoring the disaster that is Japan after almost 2 decades of Keynesian economics.

I'm not an advocate of Laissez-faire, either.

The New Deal was enormously successful, but I believe the majority of the provisions should have expired when the emergency passed. It's not a bad way to respond to an emergency - but not a very good "business-as-usual" imho.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If someone has a legitimate reason for being poor other then being lazy? Fine help em out.
And making someone work for what they have will most definitely build character and confidence in their ability to be more then a taker.

Someone working at minimum wage is poor. They don't appear to be lazy to me from what I've seen.

There is no reason why someone should stay at min wage. It takes very little effort to take that next step. Hell,just showing up and doing your job to the best of your ability will bring raises. If it doesnt,you work long enough to get a work history and move on.

When a thousand people show up to apply for a hundred jobs at a new Walmart, and that and similar situations occur all the time now, I think you're full of shit to argue that people are poor because they want to be.

 

[hunarcy]

The New Deal was enormously successful.

LOL!!!! While it did provide relief, the fact is that the New Deal did NOT end the Great Depression as it was supposed to do. Unemployment remained high, while economic growth remained slow. Recovery only came about, at last, in Roosevelt's third term, when the heavy demands of mobilization for World War II finally restored the country to full employment. So, to call it enormously successful is not accurate.

 

[DiamondDave]

Only if you forgetting the "free market miracle" of the Great Depression in 1929.

No thanks

I'm certainly not forgetting the prolonged pain of the New Deal's weak recovery until the beginning of WWII. I'm not ignoring the disaster that is Japan after almost 2 decades of Keynesian economics.

I'm not an advocate of Laissez-faire, either.

The New Deal was enormously successful, but I believe the majority of the provisions should have expired when the emergency passed. It's not a bad way to respond to an emergency - but not a very good "business-as-usual" imho.

It was not.. it is PREACHED to be, by the big government types... it was actually a benchmark in our government's over-reach... and it's interference lengthened the recovery

 

[DiamondDave]

Someone working at minimum wage is poor. They don't appear to be lazy to me from what I've seen.

There is no reason why someone should stay at min wage. It takes very little effort to take that next step. Hell,just showing up and doing your job to the best of your ability will bring raises. If it doesnt,you work long enough to get a work history and move on.

When a thousand people show up to apply for a hundred jobs at a new Walmart, and that and similar situations occur all the time now, I think you're full of shit to argue that people are poor because they want to be.

Try remaining among the low earning because they don't WANT To do what it takes to advance... bare minimum advancement and bare minimum efforts gets you bare minimum wage

And there are jobs available everywhere... just look in any shopping center, newspaper, or job board... many just feel things are beneath them

I am among the ranks of those looking.. company went chapter 11... doing day work contracting right now.. interviewing for other positions weekly looking for what I want, but that does not prevent me from working any job that is needed until I get what I want

 

[Redfish]

So why do you rightwingers howl when I point out that what conservatives really want to do is raise taxes on the poor and lower income Americans?

What conservatives really want is for the government to stop spending more than it takes in. Raising anyone's taxes is not the answer, the problem is not too little revenue, the problem is too much spending.

you libs always try to take this debate into taxes and who should pay more, but thats not really the issue.

Since when? If that were the case, they would insist on identified spending cuts before they cut taxes.......they never have

Cut taxes and ask questions later

I think we may agree on this, do we also agree that both parties are guilty of continuing to run up the debt and to spend more than they take in?

I suspect that if you were to tell the truth, you are in favor of continuous debt and every increasing deficits as long as the money is spent for what you label as the "common good"..

 

[Redfish]

Someone working at minimum wage is poor. They don't appear to be lazy to me from what I've seen.

There is no reason why someone should stay at min wage. It takes very little effort to take that next step. Hell,just showing up and doing your job to the best of your ability will bring raises. If it doesnt,you work long enough to get a work history and move on.

When a thousand people show up to apply for a hundred jobs at a new Walmart, and that and similar situations occur all the time now, I think you're full of shit to argue that people are poor because they want to be.

"you cannot raise the poor by bringing down the rich" Do you know who said that?

 

[nodoginnafight]

What conservatives really want is for the government to stop spending more than it takes in. Raising anyone's taxes is not the answer, the problem is not too little revenue, the problem is too much spending.

you libs always try to take this debate into taxes and who should pay more, but thats not really the issue.

Since when? If that were the case, they would insist on identified spending cuts before they cut taxes.......they never have

Cut taxes and ask questions later

I think we may agree on this, do we also agree that both parties are guilty of continuing to run up the debt and to spend more than they take in?

I suspect that if you were to tell the truth, you are in favor of continuous debt and every increasing deficits as long as the money is spent for what you label as the "common good"..

I agree with what you say about both parties being guilty - but why make assumptions about what another poster may or may not favor - it's the straw man fallacy.

 

[kiwiman127]

Just think, if wage earner's income went up the same rate the uber wealthy and the wealthy's went up, the uber wealthy and wealthy wouldn't get stuck paying 72% of the taxes.

In 1979, non-supervisory workers made 18.31 an hour in constant 2011 dollars (Real Dollars) and 651.82 per week.
In 2011 these same positions were paying 19.47 an hour and weekly pay was 654.87 in constant 2011 dollars.
SWA-Wages | Table 4.3 | Hourly and weekly earnings of private production and nonsupervisory workers, 1947?2011 (2011 dollars) | State of Working America
That's a little over a 6% raise in 35 years and productivity has always been on a upwards curve. Corporate profits have also go on a upwards curve.
Who determines wages? Who shipped jobs offshore? Who has benefitted from low and flat wages?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm certainly not forgetting the prolonged pain of the New Deal's weak recovery until the beginning of WWII. I'm not ignoring the disaster that is Japan after almost 2 decades of Keynesian economics.

I'm not an advocate of Laissez-faire, either.

The New Deal was enormously successful, but I believe the majority of the provisions should have expired when the emergency passed. It's not a bad way to respond to an emergency - but not a very good "business-as-usual" imho.

It was not.. it is PREACHED to be, by the big government types... it was actually a benchmark in our government's over-reach... and it's interference lengthened the recovery

There is no arguing that the numbers and the economic climate improved dramatically as the result of the New Deal. During the first term unemployment dropped by 15 percentage points. Gross national product went from $55 billion to $85 billion. Purchase of consumer goods went from $45 billion to $65 billion. Private investment in industry went from $2 billion to $10 billion. All accomplished over a six-year period prior to the onset of the wartime economy.

Trying to re-write history to meet a current political philosophy just doesn't work. Too many people know better.

As the crisis lessened - the New Deal had a reverse effect. And Many of those gains were lost. Which is why I said that it was a good emergency response - but not a good "business-as-usual" policy. The numbers clearly back that up.

 

[TooTall]

There is no way that a flat tax does not cut taxes on the wealthy and increase taxes on the poor

That is what you call "Fair"

Funny how you were not worried about 'FAIR' when a growing number were excluded from income taxes to begin with

The example shown every time, for the likes of you.. is at the grocery store, you have no charge for your milk while the guy behind you gets charged for both you and him... and when the CORRECTION is finally made, you complain about it being unfair that you get a raise in price for the good, and that the other guy is getting a cut

When have you ever paid for someone elses milk at the grocery store?

When they pay for their milk with an EBT card.

 

[rightwinger]

Funny how you were not worried about 'FAIR' when a growing number were excluded from income taxes to begin with

The example shown every time, for the likes of you.. is at the grocery store, you have no charge for your milk while the guy behind you gets charged for both you and him... and when the CORRECTION is finally made, you complain about it being unfair that you get a raise in price for the good, and that the other guy is getting a cut

When have you ever paid for someone elses milk at the grocery store?

When they pay for their milk with an EBT card.

Really?

And how much of your taxes go to pay for that poor womans milk?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no reason why someone should stay at min wage. It takes very little effort to take that next step. Hell,just showing up and doing your job to the best of your ability will bring raises. If it doesnt,you work long enough to get a work history and move on.

When a thousand people show up to apply for a hundred jobs at a new Walmart, and that and similar situations occur all the time now, I think you're full of shit to argue that people are poor because they want to be.

"you cannot raise the poor by bringing down the rich" Do you know who said that?

Why would I care who said it? Do you really think I judge right or wrong that way? Are you projecting?

It's wrong. The production of wealth is a zero sum game. The more that is confiscated by the Rich, the less there is left for the not-rich.

 

[DiamondDave]

The New Deal was enormously successful, but I believe the majority of the provisions should have expired when the emergency passed. It's not a bad way to respond to an emergency - but not a very good "business-as-usual" imho.

It was not.. it is PREACHED to be, by the big government types... it was actually a benchmark in our government's over-reach... and it's interference lengthened the recovery

There is no arguing that the numbers and the economic climate improved dramatically as the result of the New Deal. During the first term unemployment dropped by 15 percentage points. Gross national product went from $55 billion to $85 billion. Purchase of consumer goods went from $45 billion to $65 billion. Private investment in industry went from $2 billion to $10 billion. All accomplished over a six-year period prior to the onset of the wartime economy.

Trying to re-write history to meet a current political philosophy just doesn't work. Too many people know better.

As the crisis lessened - the New Deal had a reverse effect. And Many of those gains were lost. Which is why I said that it was a good emergency response - but not a good "business-as-usual" policy. The numbers clearly back that up.

Hardly... it did not 'improve dramatically as a result of the new deal'.. and this has been shown time and time again by numerous people...

It was a horrid emergency response as it was not the job of the federal government.... many things from the new deal plague us still today.. it was one of the greatest over-reaches in our governmental history

 

[DiamondDave]

When a thousand people show up to apply for a hundred jobs at a new Walmart, and that and similar situations occur all the time now, I think you're full of shit to argue that people are poor because they want to be.

"you cannot raise the poor by bringing down the rich" Do you know who said that?

Why would I care who said it? Do you really think I judge right or wrong that way? Are you projecting?

It's wrong. The production of wealth is a zero sum game. The more that is confiscated by the Rich, the less there is left for the not-rich.

It is not a zero sum game

Thanks for playing

Please see Don Pardo on your way out for some lovely parting gifts

 

[nodoginnafight]

It was not.. it is PREACHED to be, by the big government types... it was actually a benchmark in our government's over-reach... and it's interference lengthened the recovery

There is no arguing that the numbers and the economic climate improved dramatically as the result of the New Deal. During the first term unemployment dropped by 15 percentage points. Gross national product went from $55 billion to $85 billion. Purchase of consumer goods went from $45 billion to $65 billion. Private investment in industry went from $2 billion to $10 billion. All accomplished over a six-year period prior to the onset of the wartime economy.

Trying to re-write history to meet a current political philosophy just doesn't work. Too many people know better.

As the crisis lessened - the New Deal had a reverse effect. And Many of those gains were lost. Which is why I said that it was a good emergency response - but not a good "business-as-usual" policy. The numbers clearly back that up.

Hardly... it did not 'improve dramatically as a result of the new deal'.. and this has been shown time and time again by numerous people...

It was a horrid emergency response as it was not the job of the federal government.... many things from the new deal plague us still today.. it was one of the greatest over-reaches in our governmental history

The numbers show the dramatic improvement - no matter how many revisionists try to say different - the numbers are right there. I've never found opinions to be more persuasive than the actual numbers.

There are New Deal programs alive that I think should have expired when the emergency past (as I posted before).

 

[NYcarbineer]

The numbers are misleading. It's really only the top 5% who are paying a disproportionately large share in taxes on the income that group earns.

If you are in the 10% to 5%, that group earns 11% of all the income produced, and pays 12% of all the income tax collected.

See the link:

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 71 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

How many of you are in the top 10% of all income earners????????

 

[bendog]

We don't need no stinking numbers

BEA National Economic Accounts

See table 3 "percent change from preceeding period"

And actually I was doing pretty well during the Ford and Carter years, but inflation was a huge problem, so I don't blame Jimmy and the Gipper for tanking the express train.

And, we ain't been doing so well lately.