Americans Earning Six Figures Or More Pay Nearly 80% of Individual Income Taxes

[kaz]

Clinton in Final Push for NAFTA : Trade: The President tells a small-business group that prosperity hinges on pact with Mexico and Canada. The vote will be close, as lawmakers slowly take sides.

As you can read in my signature line, now Mrs. Tuzla Clinton is lying about her role in NAFTA.

She also said she was named after Sir Edmond Hillary who climbed Everest, when she was four. He was an unknown bee keeper when she was born. Then there's coming under sniper fire in Bosnia. She created the term "vast right wing conspiracy" over Gennifer Flowers, an accusation she knew was true when she said it. She "couldn't breathe" she was so upset when she found out her cheating dog of a husband has gotten a blow from the girl he "didn't have sexual relations with." She lost her Whitewater files until the investigation was over.

The truth and Hillary have nothing to do with each other. I don't think they even like each other ...

 

[Slade3200]

It is an arbitrary number... I haven't analyzed the statistics but my point is that the middle class and working poor shouldn't carry a significant tax burden... The number could be 80k or 150k... Those who are saving and scrapping to afford retirement and living costs to provide for their families. The point of taxation is to remove currency from the economy to account for spending, debt and new money. It's the balancing act the treasury needs to hold value in the dollar. Since money flows to the top earners, that's where the taxation and "burning" of currency should be focused. The strength of our economy is our middle class and small businesses so there is no Reason to take money from them via taxation. That is my point.

As a small business owner, if you think government is helping us and not fucking us, then you're just ignorant. My liberal sister in law stopped voting for Democrats ... when she opened her veterinary practice ...

I am a small business owner as well and I never stated any such claim... How did you get that from my statement? I said that small biz, the middle class and the poor should carry little to no tax burden

Well, the implication of the post seemed to be that's why we tax the rich, so we don't have to tax the others

Read it again. Taxation is not the governments income, we create our own currency and most of the money is created by the banks when people borrow... Taxation me pirpose is to remove money from the economy and it should be focused on where most of the wealth flows

Money is printed, it's not created. The difference is the implication that when you "create" something there is economic value created. And government printing money is a tax.

Say the economy is 10 pencils in economic value and the nominal value of the currency is $100. Well, each pencil is worth $10. And the value of $1 is 1/10 a pencil. Say now the teacher loans someone $50 of new currency. Well, the cost of a pencil goes up to $15 and the value of $1 goes down to 1/15 of a pencil. So in this economy when government floods money into the economy by issuing new money to buy itself pencils, it's taxing everyone who has currency by reducing the value of their currency. It's also a regressive tax because the poor have disproportionately fewer real assets. But Democrats don't care about reality, they care about the greed message that sells.

Of course that assumes all else is equal and doesn't change for things like fear and risk. It would also be in that exact scenario an asset based (say gold) economy. In economies like ours our currency is basically a loan guaranteed by government's ability to tax it's citizens in the future. That changes the numbers I gave, but doesn't change the dynamic.

Nice breakdown... simplistic as I know you intended, but missing some crucial elements as our economy is a very complicated machine. The value of the dollar or pencil is not directly related to the amount of money borrowed... It is related but many other factors need to be considered. Money also isn't printed any longer... The press has cobwebs... It's all just numbers on a screen... The problem with our economy, to use your analogy, is the 1% are the ones with the pencil sharpeners going around sharpening everybody's pencils, they collect the shavings and make new pencils with the materials, in the end they have all the pencils... As the government puts more pencils out there and loans the students money to buy more pencils the 1% continues to collect their shavings... So when it comes to taxation, the government needs to collect pencils and pencil shavings to maintain a strong value for the pencil. My point is, they should be collecting from the ones that own all the pencil sharpeners and not the students that only have a few pencils.

Haha, silly analogy I know but I gave it a shot... Hopefully my message made it through

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

To the 45 percent that Romney was right about, you're welcome.

Americans Earning Six Figures Or More Pay Nearly 80% of Individual Income Taxes

Americans earning six figures or more paid 79.5 percent of the nation’s share in individual income taxes in 2014, according to the latest preliminary data from the Internal Revenue Service.

Americans paid a total of $1,358,093,169,000 to the IRS in individual income taxes in 2014. Americans earning $100,000 or more paid $1,079,392,180,000 to the IRS, or 79.5 percent of the total

And:
45% of Americans pay no federal income tax

45% of Americans pay no federal income tax

You take most the income...you pay most the taxes

Take? Crawl out from under your rock a bit more... it's called earn.

 

[kaz]

As a small business owner, if you think government is helping us and not fucking us, then you're just ignorant. My liberal sister in law stopped voting for Democrats ... when she opened her veterinary practice ...

I am a small business owner as well and I never stated any such claim... How did you get that from my statement? I said that small biz, the middle class and the poor should carry little to no tax burden

Well, the implication of the post seemed to be that's why we tax the rich, so we don't have to tax the others

Read it again. Taxation is not the governments income, we create our own currency and most of the money is created by the banks when people borrow... Taxation me pirpose is to remove money from the economy and it should be focused on where most of the wealth flows

Money is printed, it's not created. The difference is the implication that when you "create" something there is economic value created. And government printing money is a tax.

Say the economy is 10 pencils in economic value and the nominal value of the currency is $100. Well, each pencil is worth $10. And the value of $1 is 1/10 a pencil. Say now the teacher loans someone $50 of new currency. Well, the cost of a pencil goes up to $15 and the value of $1 goes down to 1/15 of a pencil. So in this economy when government floods money into the economy by issuing new money to buy itself pencils, it's taxing everyone who has currency by reducing the value of their currency. It's also a regressive tax because the poor have disproportionately fewer real assets. But Democrats don't care about reality, they care about the greed message that sells.

Of course that assumes all else is equal and doesn't change for things like fear and risk. It would also be in that exact scenario an asset based (say gold) economy. In economies like ours our currency is basically a loan guaranteed by government's ability to tax it's citizens in the future. That changes the numbers I gave, but doesn't change the dynamic.

Nice breakdown... simplistic as I know you intended, but missing some crucial elements as our economy is a very complicated machine. The value of the dollar or pencil is not directly related to the amount of money borrowed... It is related but many other factors need to be considered. Money also isn't printed any longer... The press has cobwebs... It's all just numbers on a screen... The problem with our economy, to use your analogy, is the 1% are the ones with the pencil sharpeners going around sharpening everybody's pencils, they collect the shavings and make new pencils with the materials, in the end they have all the pencils... As the government puts more pencils out there and loans the students money to buy more pencils the 1% continues to collect their shavings... So when it comes to taxation, the government needs to collect pencils and pencil shavings to maintain a strong value for the pencil. My point is, they should be collecting from the ones that own all the pencil sharpeners and not the students that only have a few pencils.

Haha, silly analogy I know but I gave it a shot... Hopefully my message made it through

I was addressing specifically the issuing new money point.

On your argument, the point you're missing is that the ones who are collecting the shavings are the ones giving the ones holding a few pencils jobs and when you tax the shavings, you directly reduce the jobs. As a business owner, you take my $$$, I either cut staff I have or grow more slowly. Can't spend what I don't have

 

[Skull Pilot]

The real question is how much of the total income do the 6 figure plus crowd possess?

They own like 99% of the wealth. They should be paying 99% of the income tax, right ?

Do you know the difference between wealth and income?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The real question is how much of the total income do the 6 figure plus crowd possess?

They own like 99% of the wealth. They should be paying 99% of the income tax, right ?

and they use 99.9 percent of the road, fire departments and all other government services.

Fed income tax pays for all services now ?

Fine, what % should they pay ?

Conservatards go to great lengths to promote this lie that wealthy Americans are somehow being hosed by the tax code .

It all depends on how you define "wealthy"

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The real question is how much of the total income do the 6 figure plus crowd possess?

They own like 99% of the wealth. They should be paying 99% of the income tax, right ?

Do you know the difference between wealth and income?

No, he doesn't. He's been brainwashed into thinking that anyone who has anything, got it at his expense. Everything is a zero-sum game... I get a dollar, you lose a dollar.

It's amazing.

 

[Slade3200]

I am a small business owner as well and I never stated any such claim... How did you get that from my statement? I said that small biz, the middle class and the poor should carry little to no tax burden

Well, the implication of the post seemed to be that's why we tax the rich, so we don't have to tax the others

Read it again. Taxation is not the governments income, we create our own currency and most of the money is created by the banks when people borrow... Taxation me pirpose is to remove money from the economy and it should be focused on where most of the wealth flows

Money is printed, it's not created. The difference is the implication that when you "create" something there is economic value created. And government printing money is a tax.

Say the economy is 10 pencils in economic value and the nominal value of the currency is $100. Well, each pencil is worth $10. And the value of $1 is 1/10 a pencil. Say now the teacher loans someone $50 of new currency. Well, the cost of a pencil goes up to $15 and the value of $1 goes down to 1/15 of a pencil. So in this economy when government floods money into the economy by issuing new money to buy itself pencils, it's taxing everyone who has currency by reducing the value of their currency. It's also a regressive tax because the poor have disproportionately fewer real assets. But Democrats don't care about reality, they care about the greed message that sells.

Of course that assumes all else is equal and doesn't change for things like fear and risk. It would also be in that exact scenario an asset based (say gold) economy. In economies like ours our currency is basically a loan guaranteed by government's ability to tax it's citizens in the future. That changes the numbers I gave, but doesn't change the dynamic.

Nice breakdown... simplistic as I know you intended, but missing some crucial elements as our economy is a very complicated machine. The value of the dollar or pencil is not directly related to the amount of money borrowed... It is related but many other factors need to be considered. Money also isn't printed any longer... The press has cobwebs... It's all just numbers on a screen... The problem with our economy, to use your analogy, is the 1% are the ones with the pencil sharpeners going around sharpening everybody's pencils, they collect the shavings and make new pencils with the materials, in the end they have all the pencils... As the government puts more pencils out there and loans the students money to buy more pencils the 1% continues to collect their shavings... So when it comes to taxation, the government needs to collect pencils and pencil shavings to maintain a strong value for the pencil. My point is, they should be collecting from the ones that own all the pencil sharpeners and not the students that only have a few pencils.

Haha, silly analogy I know but I gave it a shot... Hopefully my message made it through

I was addressing specifically the issuing new money point.

On your argument, the point you're missing is that the ones who are collecting the shavings are the ones giving the ones holding a few pencils jobs and when you tax the shavings, you directly reduce the jobs. As a business owner, you take my $$$, I either cut staff I have or grow more slowly. Can't spend what I don't have

You are correct with small businesses but with big business and the 1% you are talking about something completely different. I'm fine with tax incentives for big biz geared towards domestic job growth and investment, but when execs are getting paid 100s of millions of dollars and cutting low end jobs, then something is wrong

 

[Skull Pilot]

The real question is how much of the total income do the 6 figure plus crowd possess?

They own like 99% of the wealth. They should be paying 99% of the income tax, right ?

Then these '99%' after paying 99% of the taxes should be able to tell the other 1% that they can use 1% of the electric grid and the roads right. After all. Fair is fair right?
"I pay for 99% of this bridge. You paid 1% for it. Go ahead and use your 1%".

The super wealthly do use more services .

Who uses airports more? Donald Trump or the waitress down at the. IHOP.

Airports are funded with taxes on fliers. And be specific, what government services do I use more of than you do. I can't think of anything I use more of than trailer trash. So be specific

Airports and the FAA are not fully supported by fees . Not even close . If that was true they wouldn't have budgets . The TSA alone has a $7billion budget .

Take all the gov programs that protect Americans financial industry . Is your trailer trash guy using the SEC?

3300 airports are deemed vital to the country for defense, postal services, emergency readiness etc and are the only airports eligible for federal grants for capital development

So while a person might not fly from an airport they do benefit in other ways
And those people who do not fly do not pay any taxes involved with ticket prices

People who do not drive still benefit from roads as well. They do not pay the gas taxes but they should pay something towards them

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then these '99%' after paying 99% of the taxes should be able to tell the other 1% that they can use 1% of the electric grid and the roads right. After all. Fair is fair right?
"I pay for 99% of this bridge. You paid 1% for it. Go ahead and use your 1%".

The super wealthly do use more services .

Who uses airports more? Donald Trump or the waitress down at the. IHOP.

Airports are funded with taxes on fliers. And be specific, what government services do I use more of than you do. I can't think of anything I use more of than trailer trash. So be specific

Airports and the FAA are not fully supported by fees . Not even close . If that was true they wouldn't have budgets . The TSA alone has a $7billion budget .

Take all the gov programs that protect Americans financial industry . Is your trailer trash guy using the SEC?

So when you set up agencies to control us, that's us using government services?



And the airport things you listed are a tiny, tiny piece of the budget

I'm providing examples as u asked .

This tread started wh the implication that the wealthy were paying too much of a % . Now it's shifted to "everyone pays equally for everything". As if u can quantify what % of the gov each of us is using .

Well everyone doesn't pay equally for anything we have already established that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let's hope dear old man Bernie isn't elected....imagine, if you will - having a wallet with a $10 dollar bill in it. Good old communist Bernie comes in, takes your wallet and your $10 dollar bill and replaces it with a $1 dollar bill. Congratulations!!! You just paid YOUR fair share!!!

I heard tonight that good ol Bernie paid his taxes to the tune of 13%.....
But he wants others to pay up to 90%....

You heard wrong, dupe. 90% wrong, maybe 70% over a million. Only thing that keeps down ridiculous CEO pay.

He certainly would CUT taxes on everyone on this board, as opposed to the GOP, dupe. Now everyone pays between 20-30% in ALL taxes and fees. AND ALL THE NEW WEALTH GOES TO THE RICHEST. Great job, greedy GOP billionaires and silly dupes like YOU.

Ok so now prove to me that if some CEO got a pay cut that you or anyone else would see a pay raise

 

[kaz]

Well, the implication of the post seemed to be that's why we tax the rich, so we don't have to tax the others

Read it again. Taxation is not the governments income, we create our own currency and most of the money is created by the banks when people borrow... Taxation me pirpose is to remove money from the economy and it should be focused on where most of the wealth flows

Money is printed, it's not created. The difference is the implication that when you "create" something there is economic value created. And government printing money is a tax.

Say the economy is 10 pencils in economic value and the nominal value of the currency is $100. Well, each pencil is worth $10. And the value of $1 is 1/10 a pencil. Say now the teacher loans someone $50 of new currency. Well, the cost of a pencil goes up to $15 and the value of $1 goes down to 1/15 of a pencil. So in this economy when government floods money into the economy by issuing new money to buy itself pencils, it's taxing everyone who has currency by reducing the value of their currency. It's also a regressive tax because the poor have disproportionately fewer real assets. But Democrats don't care about reality, they care about the greed message that sells.

Of course that assumes all else is equal and doesn't change for things like fear and risk. It would also be in that exact scenario an asset based (say gold) economy. In economies like ours our currency is basically a loan guaranteed by government's ability to tax it's citizens in the future. That changes the numbers I gave, but doesn't change the dynamic.

Nice breakdown... simplistic as I know you intended, but missing some crucial elements as our economy is a very complicated machine. The value of the dollar or pencil is not directly related to the amount of money borrowed... It is related but many other factors need to be considered. Money also isn't printed any longer... The press has cobwebs... It's all just numbers on a screen... The problem with our economy, to use your analogy, is the 1% are the ones with the pencil sharpeners going around sharpening everybody's pencils, they collect the shavings and make new pencils with the materials, in the end they have all the pencils... As the government puts more pencils out there and loans the students money to buy more pencils the 1% continues to collect their shavings... So when it comes to taxation, the government needs to collect pencils and pencil shavings to maintain a strong value for the pencil. My point is, they should be collecting from the ones that own all the pencil sharpeners and not the students that only have a few pencils.

Haha, silly analogy I know but I gave it a shot... Hopefully my message made it through

I was addressing specifically the issuing new money point.

On your argument, the point you're missing is that the ones who are collecting the shavings are the ones giving the ones holding a few pencils jobs and when you tax the shavings, you directly reduce the jobs. As a business owner, you take my $$$, I either cut staff I have or grow more slowly. Can't spend what I don't have

You are correct with small businesses but with big business and the 1% you are talking about something completely different. I'm fine with tax incentives for big biz geared towards domestic job growth and investment, but when execs are getting paid 100s of millions of dollars and cutting low end jobs, then something is wrong

The only tax cuts that work are the across the board ones. The targeted ones change behavior and inevitably undermine the intent of the cut. Raise the minimum wage? A bunch of people get sacked. Tax repatriated money? Money stays overseas. Raise the tax on dividend? Companies put more money into stock buybacks. Politicians aren't as smart as we are. Free markets drive efficiency and maximize the benefits. You can't tax the shavers thinking we are the only ones effected. You don't really affect our lives, but we have less to invest and the people you tried to help get fired

 

[Slade3200]

Let's hope dear old man Bernie isn't elected....imagine, if you will - having a wallet with a $10 dollar bill in it. Good old communist Bernie comes in, takes your wallet and your $10 dollar bill and replaces it with a $1 dollar bill. Congratulations!!! You just paid YOUR fair share!!!

I heard tonight that good ol Bernie paid his taxes to the tune of 13%.....
But he wants others to pay up to 90%....

You heard wrong, dupe. 90% wrong, maybe 70% over a million. Only thing that keeps down ridiculous CEO pay.

He certainly would CUT taxes on everyone on this board, as opposed to the GOP, dupe. Now everyone pays between 20-30% in ALL taxes and fees. AND ALL THE NEW WEALTH GOES TO THE RICHEST. Great job, greedy GOP billionaires and silly dupes like YOU.

Ok so now prove to me that if some CEO got a pay cut that you or anyone else would see a pay raise

CEOs and big business have been doing great and profiting and the workers have not seen wage growth... So what makes you think that if a biz makes more money they will pay their employees more? More profits don't increase wages, more competition does.

 

[kaz]

Let's hope dear old man Bernie isn't elected....imagine, if you will - having a wallet with a $10 dollar bill in it. Good old communist Bernie comes in, takes your wallet and your $10 dollar bill and replaces it with a $1 dollar bill. Congratulations!!! You just paid YOUR fair share!!!

I heard tonight that good ol Bernie paid his taxes to the tune of 13%.....
But he wants others to pay up to 90%....

You heard wrong, dupe. 90% wrong, maybe 70% over a million. Only thing that keeps down ridiculous CEO pay.

He certainly would CUT taxes on everyone on this board, as opposed to the GOP, dupe. Now everyone pays between 20-30% in ALL taxes and fees. AND ALL THE NEW WEALTH GOES TO THE RICHEST. Great job, greedy GOP billionaires and silly dupes like YOU.

Ok so now prove to me that if some CEO got a pay cut that you or anyone else would see a pay raise

CEOs and big business have been doing great and profiting and the workers have not seen wage growth... So what makes you think that if a biz makes more money they will pay their employees more? More profits don't increase wages, more competition does.

And more taxes cause job cuts

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let's hope dear old man Bernie isn't elected....imagine, if you will - having a wallet with a $10 dollar bill in it. Good old communist Bernie comes in, takes your wallet and your $10 dollar bill and replaces it with a $1 dollar bill. Congratulations!!! You just paid YOUR fair share!!!

I heard tonight that good ol Bernie paid his taxes to the tune of 13%.....
But he wants others to pay up to 90%....

You heard wrong, dupe. 90% wrong, maybe 70% over a million. Only thing that keeps down ridiculous CEO pay.

He certainly would CUT taxes on everyone on this board, as opposed to the GOP, dupe. Now everyone pays between 20-30% in ALL taxes and fees. AND ALL THE NEW WEALTH GOES TO THE RICHEST. Great job, greedy GOP billionaires and silly dupes like YOU.

Ok so now prove to me that if some CEO got a pay cut that you or anyone else would see a pay raise

CEOs and big business have been doing great and profiting and the workers have not seen wage growth... So what makes you think that if a biz makes more money they will pay their employees more? More profits don't increase wages, more competition does.

I don't think that at all. Quite frankly it's not anyone's business what a business pays its employees. That is an agreement between the owners, board members, management etc and the employees.

The idea that if some people get paid less will result in others getting paid more is naively simplistic

 

[Slade3200]

Read it again. Taxation is not the governments income, we create our own currency and most of the money is created by the banks when people borrow... Taxation me pirpose is to remove money from the economy and it should be focused on where most of the wealth flows

Money is printed, it's not created. The difference is the implication that when you "create" something there is economic value created. And government printing money is a tax.

Say the economy is 10 pencils in economic value and the nominal value of the currency is $100. Well, each pencil is worth $10. And the value of $1 is 1/10 a pencil. Say now the teacher loans someone $50 of new currency. Well, the cost of a pencil goes up to $15 and the value of $1 goes down to 1/15 of a pencil. So in this economy when government floods money into the economy by issuing new money to buy itself pencils, it's taxing everyone who has currency by reducing the value of their currency. It's also a regressive tax because the poor have disproportionately fewer real assets. But Democrats don't care about reality, they care about the greed message that sells.

Of course that assumes all else is equal and doesn't change for things like fear and risk. It would also be in that exact scenario an asset based (say gold) economy. In economies like ours our currency is basically a loan guaranteed by government's ability to tax it's citizens in the future. That changes the numbers I gave, but doesn't change the dynamic.

Nice breakdown... simplistic as I know you intended, but missing some crucial elements as our economy is a very complicated machine. The value of the dollar or pencil is not directly related to the amount of money borrowed... It is related but many other factors need to be considered. Money also isn't printed any longer... The press has cobwebs... It's all just numbers on a screen... The problem with our economy, to use your analogy, is the 1% are the ones with the pencil sharpeners going around sharpening everybody's pencils, they collect the shavings and make new pencils with the materials, in the end they have all the pencils... As the government puts more pencils out there and loans the students money to buy more pencils the 1% continues to collect their shavings... So when it comes to taxation, the government needs to collect pencils and pencil shavings to maintain a strong value for the pencil. My point is, they should be collecting from the ones that own all the pencil sharpeners and not the students that only have a few pencils.

Haha, silly analogy I know but I gave it a shot... Hopefully my message made it through

I was addressing specifically the issuing new money point.

On your argument, the point you're missing is that the ones who are collecting the shavings are the ones giving the ones holding a few pencils jobs and when you tax the shavings, you directly reduce the jobs. As a business owner, you take my $$$, I either cut staff I have or grow more slowly. Can't spend what I don't have

You are correct with small businesses but with big business and the 1% you are talking about something completely different. I'm fine with tax incentives for big biz geared towards domestic job growth and investment, but when execs are getting paid 100s of millions of dollars and cutting low end jobs, then something is wrong

The only tax cuts that work are the across the board ones. The targeted ones change behavior and inevitably undermine the intent of the cut. Raise the minimum wage? A bunch of people get sacked. Tax repatriated money? Money stays overseas. Raise the tax on dividend? Companies put more money into stock buybacks. Politicians aren't as smart as we are. Free markets drive efficiency and maximize the benefits. You can't tax the shavers thinking we are the only ones effected. You don't really affect our lives, but we have less to invest and the people you tried to help get fired

When companies start firing people they stunt their growth and earning potential, so if they were smart they would invest in the right places should taxation or wage regulation be increased... If they do downsize then that opens the market for more competition which is a good thing if our system can support small business growth

 

[Skull Pilot]

Money is printed, it's not created. The difference is the implication that when you "create" something there is economic value created. And government printing money is a tax.

Say the economy is 10 pencils in economic value and the nominal value of the currency is $100. Well, each pencil is worth $10. And the value of $1 is 1/10 a pencil. Say now the teacher loans someone $50 of new currency. Well, the cost of a pencil goes up to $15 and the value of $1 goes down to 1/15 of a pencil. So in this economy when government floods money into the economy by issuing new money to buy itself pencils, it's taxing everyone who has currency by reducing the value of their currency. It's also a regressive tax because the poor have disproportionately fewer real assets. But Democrats don't care about reality, they care about the greed message that sells.

Of course that assumes all else is equal and doesn't change for things like fear and risk. It would also be in that exact scenario an asset based (say gold) economy. In economies like ours our currency is basically a loan guaranteed by government's ability to tax it's citizens in the future. That changes the numbers I gave, but doesn't change the dynamic.

Nice breakdown... simplistic as I know you intended, but missing some crucial elements as our economy is a very complicated machine. The value of the dollar or pencil is not directly related to the amount of money borrowed... It is related but many other factors need to be considered. Money also isn't printed any longer... The press has cobwebs... It's all just numbers on a screen... The problem with our economy, to use your analogy, is the 1% are the ones with the pencil sharpeners going around sharpening everybody's pencils, they collect the shavings and make new pencils with the materials, in the end they have all the pencils... As the government puts more pencils out there and loans the students money to buy more pencils the 1% continues to collect their shavings... So when it comes to taxation, the government needs to collect pencils and pencil shavings to maintain a strong value for the pencil. My point is, they should be collecting from the ones that own all the pencil sharpeners and not the students that only have a few pencils.

Haha, silly analogy I know but I gave it a shot... Hopefully my message made it through

I was addressing specifically the issuing new money point.

On your argument, the point you're missing is that the ones who are collecting the shavings are the ones giving the ones holding a few pencils jobs and when you tax the shavings, you directly reduce the jobs. As a business owner, you take my $$$, I either cut staff I have or grow more slowly. Can't spend what I don't have

You are correct with small businesses but with big business and the 1% you are talking about something completely different. I'm fine with tax incentives for big biz geared towards domestic job growth and investment, but when execs are getting paid 100s of millions of dollars and cutting low end jobs, then something is wrong

The only tax cuts that work are the across the board ones. The targeted ones change behavior and inevitably undermine the intent of the cut. Raise the minimum wage? A bunch of people get sacked. Tax repatriated money? Money stays overseas. Raise the tax on dividend? Companies put more money into stock buybacks. Politicians aren't as smart as we are. Free markets drive efficiency and maximize the benefits. You can't tax the shavers thinking we are the only ones effected. You don't really affect our lives, but we have less to invest and the people you tried to help get fired

When companies start firing people they stunt their growth and earning potential, so if they were smart they would invest in the right places should taxation or wage regulation be increased... If they do downsize then that opens the market for more competition which is a good thing if our system can support small business growth

Small businesses get hit harder by government regulation so no this country doesn't support small business growth

 

[kaz]

Money is printed, it's not created. The difference is the implication that when you "create" something there is economic value created. And government printing money is a tax.

Say the economy is 10 pencils in economic value and the nominal value of the currency is $100. Well, each pencil is worth $10. And the value of $1 is 1/10 a pencil. Say now the teacher loans someone $50 of new currency. Well, the cost of a pencil goes up to $15 and the value of $1 goes down to 1/15 of a pencil. So in this economy when government floods money into the economy by issuing new money to buy itself pencils, it's taxing everyone who has currency by reducing the value of their currency. It's also a regressive tax because the poor have disproportionately fewer real assets. But Democrats don't care about reality, they care about the greed message that sells.

Of course that assumes all else is equal and doesn't change for things like fear and risk. It would also be in that exact scenario an asset based (say gold) economy. In economies like ours our currency is basically a loan guaranteed by government's ability to tax it's citizens in the future. That changes the numbers I gave, but doesn't change the dynamic.

Nice breakdown... simplistic as I know you intended, but missing some crucial elements as our economy is a very complicated machine. The value of the dollar or pencil is not directly related to the amount of money borrowed... It is related but many other factors need to be considered. Money also isn't printed any longer... The press has cobwebs... It's all just numbers on a screen... The problem with our economy, to use your analogy, is the 1% are the ones with the pencil sharpeners going around sharpening everybody's pencils, they collect the shavings and make new pencils with the materials, in the end they have all the pencils... As the government puts more pencils out there and loans the students money to buy more pencils the 1% continues to collect their shavings... So when it comes to taxation, the government needs to collect pencils and pencil shavings to maintain a strong value for the pencil. My point is, they should be collecting from the ones that own all the pencil sharpeners and not the students that only have a few pencils.

Haha, silly analogy I know but I gave it a shot... Hopefully my message made it through

I was addressing specifically the issuing new money point.

On your argument, the point you're missing is that the ones who are collecting the shavings are the ones giving the ones holding a few pencils jobs and when you tax the shavings, you directly reduce the jobs. As a business owner, you take my $$$, I either cut staff I have or grow more slowly. Can't spend what I don't have

You are correct with small businesses but with big business and the 1% you are talking about something completely different. I'm fine with tax incentives for big biz geared towards domestic job growth and investment, but when execs are getting paid 100s of millions of dollars and cutting low end jobs, then something is wrong

The only tax cuts that work are the across the board ones. The targeted ones change behavior and inevitably undermine the intent of the cut. Raise the minimum wage? A bunch of people get sacked. Tax repatriated money? Money stays overseas. Raise the tax on dividend? Companies put more money into stock buybacks. Politicians aren't as smart as we are. Free markets drive efficiency and maximize the benefits. You can't tax the shavers thinking we are the only ones effected. You don't really affect our lives, but we have less to invest and the people you tried to help get fired

When companies start firing people they stunt their growth and earning potential, so if they were smart they would invest in the right places should taxation or wage regulation be increased... If they do downsize then that opens the market for more competition which is a good thing if our system can support small business growth

Depends, it's all an NPV calculation. When you increase taxes you increase costs without increasing returns. That drives down the NPV of projects. That drive down is going to drive project from positive to negative, the question is how many. But all those projects that go from positive no negative are lost jobs

 

[Hutch Starskey]

To the 45 percent that Romney was right about, you're welcome.

Americans Earning Six Figures Or More Pay Nearly 80% of Individual Income Taxes

Americans earning six figures or more paid 79.5 percent of the nation’s share in individual income taxes in 2014, according to the latest preliminary data from the Internal Revenue Service.

Americans paid a total of $1,358,093,169,000 to the IRS in individual income taxes in 2014. Americans earning $100,000 or more paid $1,079,392,180,000 to the IRS, or 79.5 percent of the total

And:
45% of Americans pay no federal income tax

45% of Americans pay no federal income tax

Is this information significant in any way?
Is it new or has it always been the case that the wealthiest pay the largest share? If so then what is your point?

 

[kaz]

To the 45 percent that Romney was right about, you're welcome.

Americans Earning Six Figures Or More Pay Nearly 80% of Individual Income Taxes

Americans earning six figures or more paid 79.5 percent of the nation’s share in individual income taxes in 2014, according to the latest preliminary data from the Internal Revenue Service.

Americans paid a total of $1,358,093,169,000 to the IRS in individual income taxes in 2014. Americans earning $100,000 or more paid $1,079,392,180,000 to the IRS, or 79.5 percent of the total

And:
45% of Americans pay no federal income tax

45% of Americans pay no federal income tax

Is this information significant in any way?
Is it new or has it always been the case that the wealthiest pay the largest share? If so then what is your point?

Everyone should pay taxes, that is the only way to make you invested in how the money is spent