America’s wealthiest families smash income ceiling, middle-class left far behind

[Toddsterpatriot]

And if his taxable income climbs to between $36,901 and $89,350, his marginal tax rate will be 25%. See how it works?

And if he makes over 89K, his marginal rate is 28%. So what?
How much does he have to make to pay your 30% claim?

The Self-Employment Tax takes a big bite out of your pocket

I agree, Social Security should be privatized.

You just can't be honest Bubba, I get it

I don't believe your crap, honestly.

I get it Bubba, sourced materials with links to back them up versus your opinions. Who wouldn't stick with opinions over FACTS?

You had a link that showed some self-employed people pay 30%? I must have missed it. Try again?

Self-Employed Pay Highest Tax Rate in US
Self-Employed Pay Highest Tax Rate in US Nancy K. Humphreys


Fed tax burden

Small businesses in the United States pay an estimated average effective tax rate of
approximately 19.8 percent

Small business partnerships face an average effective tax rate of 23.6 percent, and small business S corporations face an average effective tax rate of 26.9 percent.

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs343tot.pdf

Small businesses in the United States pay an estimated average effective tax rate of
approximately 19.8 percent

That's a relief.
Based on your initial claim, I was afraid they were paying 30%.

 

[Dad2three]

You just can't be honest Bubba, I get it

I don't believe your crap, honestly.

I get it Bubba, sourced materials with links to back them up versus your opinions. Who wouldn't stick with opinions over FACTS?

You had a link that showed some self-employed people pay 30%? I must have missed it. Try again?

Self-Employed Pay Highest Tax Rate in US
Self-Employed Pay Highest Tax Rate in US Nancy K. Humphreys


Fed tax burden

Small businesses in the United States pay an estimated average effective tax rate of
approximately 19.8 percent

Small business partnerships face an average effective tax rate of 23.6 percent, and small business S corporations face an average effective tax rate of 26.9 percent.

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs343tot.pdf

Small businesses in the United States pay an estimated average effective tax rate of
approximately 19.8 percent

That's a relief.
Based on your initial claim, I was afraid they were paying 30%.

I'M SHOCKED YOU CUT OUT THE PARTS THAT REFUTE YOUR BULLSHIT, NO REALLY I AM, lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't believe your crap, honestly.

I get it Bubba, sourced materials with links to back them up versus your opinions. Who wouldn't stick with opinions over FACTS?

You had a link that showed some self-employed people pay 30%? I must have missed it. Try again?

Self-Employed Pay Highest Tax Rate in US
Self-Employed Pay Highest Tax Rate in US Nancy K. Humphreys


Fed tax burden

Small businesses in the United States pay an estimated average effective tax rate of
approximately 19.8 percent

Small business partnerships face an average effective tax rate of 23.6 percent, and small business S corporations face an average effective tax rate of 26.9 percent.

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/rs343tot.pdf

Small businesses in the United States pay an estimated average effective tax rate of
approximately 19.8 percent

That's a relief.
Based on your initial claim, I was afraid they were paying 30%.

I'M SHOCKED YOU CUT OUT THE PARTS THAT REFUTE YOUR BULLSHIT, NO REALLY I AM, lol

I didn't cut out anything, least of all your imaginary refutation.

 

[RKMBrown]

I own my own corporations. I also own stock in corporations. Yes I've also worked for corporations. Some people do work for unions. Some people join unions. There are many definitions for the term join. Do you understand the difference between the different uses of the term join?

You get really confused. You "join" a union. You pay the union for your membership.
You "work" for a corporation. The corporation pays you.

Oh and I do understand the difference. And I understand that the way you used the work "join" was your effort to equate working for a corporation to the joining of a union. They ain't the same.

Don't you know English?

Sure I know English. Let me show you.

Kiss my ass you stupid lying cocksucker.

Did you understand that?

Gee I sure hope you understood that English. I typed it as plainly as I could.

Nonsense. Unions pay people too, ya stupid POS. Some corporations require you pay for a membership to be a part of the corporation, ya stupid POS. Were you born a stupid POS or did it take years on years of libtard education?

 

[RKMBrown]

If the rich aren't paying their fair share. I agree that we should raise it to a equal percentage with the non-rich. Only fair.

But the rich are paying a higher percentage than the non-rich.
Why would you lower what the rich pay?

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.

another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400 David Cay Johnston Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).


Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.

From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones


It's the Inequality, Stupid

Yep,

The 1% can afford to pay more. They use our roads, infrastructure and police so they certainly should.

We'd be better off with a larger middle class.

If true, then why do the democrats keep raising taxes on the middle class while leaving the 1% to take advantage of our tax system?

What you morons on the left still don't get, is that the evil rich don't need any income at all, they have accrued assets, they don't need income. The wealth "inequality" is not based on income it's based on assets. You think Bill Gates earned his wealth through income? ROFL

 

[Ame®icano]

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes

In 2011, the top 1 percent of households by cash income received a whopping 75.1 percent of the benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends. The broad middle class—defined here as the middle 60 percent of households by cash income—received only 3.9 percent of that benefit.

The tax expenditure of the 1 Economic Policy Institute

Top 0.1% earns half of capital gains. So what?
They're ones that invest most, so whats the problem? Jealousy?

The question that liberals are avoiding is, would rest of us necessarily be better off if the 1% isn't getting richer? I think that 99% would most likely be in the same place economically if 1% weren't doing better. Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. Lefties are screaming at the top of their lungs about something they insist is an issue but never actually show how it is.

 

[Dad2three]

If the rich aren't paying their fair share. I agree that we should raise it to a equal percentage with the non-rich. Only fair.

But the rich are paying a higher percentage than the non-rich.
Why would you lower what the rich pay?

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.

another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.
The fortunate 400 David Cay Johnston Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).


Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.

From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

It s the Inequality Stupid Mother Jones


It's the Inequality, Stupid

Yep,

The 1% can afford to pay more. They use our roads, infrastructure and police so they certainly should.

We'd be better off with a larger middle class.

If true, then why do the democrats keep raising taxes on the middle class while leaving the 1% to take advantage of our tax system?

What you morons on the left still don't get, is that the evil rich don't need any income at all, they have accrued assets, they don't need income. The wealth "inequality" is not based on income it's based on assets. You think Bill Gates earned his wealth through income? ROFL

Weird, Clinton/Dems were the ones to take the top tax rate to 39.6% and create 3 more tax brackets that created 4 surpluses (3 after Clinton vetoed the $700+ billion tax cut the party of fiscal responsibility passed, lol). EVERY GOPer voted against it

Under Clinton we got back to where Carter had US as percent of GDP in revenues. Under Reagan, Bush and Bush ALL the GOP did was spend, spend, borrow, cut taxes, spend, cut taxes for the rich and spend!



Gawd you are dumb. You don't think the 'rich' need income? lol

Yes inequality is created through wealth, but you don't think that guys who make $50-$200 million a year create wealth either? lol

 

[Dad2three]

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes

In 2011, the top 1 percent of households by cash income received a whopping 75.1 percent of the benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends. The broad middle class—defined here as the middle 60 percent of households by cash income—received only 3.9 percent of that benefit.

The tax expenditure of the 1 Economic Policy Institute

Top 0.1% earns half of capital gains. So what?
They're ones that invest most, so whats the problem? Jealousy?

The question that liberals are avoiding is, would rest of us necessarily be better off if the 1% isn't getting richer? I think that 99% would most likely be in the same place economically if 1% weren't doing better. Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. Lefties are screaming at the top of their lungs about something they insist is an issue but never actually show how it is.

Yeah, it's jealousy *shaking head*

Way to leave out the rest of my posit, OR THE ORIGINAL POSIT!!! Typical right winger


America s wealthiest families smash income ceiling middle-class left far behind Page 68 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


"Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. "

LOL

IF you consider income that the top 1% had from 1945-1980 was 6%-9% of the pie but 23% by 2007 thanks to GOPers policies, you are correct! lol

August 29 2006
Wealth gap widens

Chasm between wealthiest households and everyone else has grown more than 50% since the early 1960s.

In the early 1960s, the top 1 percent of households in terms of net worth held 125 times the median wealth in the United States. Today, that gap has grown to 190 times.

The top 20 percent of wealth-holding households, meanwhile, held 15 times the overall median wealth in the early 1960s. By 2004, that gap had grown to 23 times.

"In 21st century America, wealth begets wealth, and those without wealth find it farther out of reach," the report's authors write.

Wealth gap has widened more than 50 during past 40 years - Aug. 29 2006




Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


I KNOW, INCOME ISN'T WEALTH *SHAKING HEAD*

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

DUMBASS RIGHT WINGERS ARE CRAZY SUCKING OFF THE BILLIONAIRES. I HOPE YOU AREN'T SWALLOWING?

 

[Ame®icano]

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes

In 2011, the top 1 percent of households by cash income received a whopping 75.1 percent of the benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends. The broad middle class—defined here as the middle 60 percent of households by cash income—received only 3.9 percent of that benefit.

The tax expenditure of the 1 Economic Policy Institute

Top 0.1% earns half of capital gains. So what?
They're ones that invest most, so whats the problem? Jealousy?

The question that liberals are avoiding is, would rest of us necessarily be better off if the 1% isn't getting richer? I think that 99% would most likely be in the same place economically if 1% weren't doing better. Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. Lefties are screaming at the top of their lungs about something they insist is an issue but never actually show how it is.

Yeah, it's jealousy *shaking head*

Way to leave out the rest of my posit, OR THE ORIGINAL POSIT!!! Typical right winger


America s wealthiest families smash income ceiling middle-class left far behind Page 68 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


"Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. "

LOL

IF you consider income that the top 1% had from 1945-1980 was 6%-9% of the pie but 23% by 2007 thanks to GOPers policies, you are correct! lol

August 29 2006
Wealth gap widens

Chasm between wealthiest households and everyone else has grown more than 50% since the early 1960s.

In the early 1960s, the top 1 percent of households in terms of net worth held 125 times the median wealth in the United States. Today, that gap has grown to 190 times.

The top 20 percent of wealth-holding households, meanwhile, held 15 times the overall median wealth in the early 1960s. By 2004, that gap had grown to 23 times.

"In 21st century America, wealth begets wealth, and those without wealth find it farther out of reach," the report's authors write.

Wealth gap has widened more than 50 during past 40 years - Aug. 29 2006




Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


I KNOW, INCOME ISN'T WEALTH *SHAKING HEAD*

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

DUMBASS RIGHT WINGERS ARE CRAZY SUCKING OFF THE BILLIONAIRES. I HOPE YOU AREN'T SWALLOWING?

I see you're bit confused. Lefties are constantly trying to present income gap as wealth gap. Those are two different things. And if you're not confused, then you're doing it on purpose.

Here is the nice link for you. It explain exactly what you need to know. Of course, I still expect you'll learn nothing and keep beating the same drum.

 

[Dad2three]

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes

In 2011, the top 1 percent of households by cash income received a whopping 75.1 percent of the benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends. The broad middle class—defined here as the middle 60 percent of households by cash income—received only 3.9 percent of that benefit.

The tax expenditure of the 1 Economic Policy Institute

Top 0.1% earns half of capital gains. So what?
They're ones that invest most, so whats the problem? Jealousy?

The question that liberals are avoiding is, would rest of us necessarily be better off if the 1% isn't getting richer? I think that 99% would most likely be in the same place economically if 1% weren't doing better. Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. Lefties are screaming at the top of their lungs about something they insist is an issue but never actually show how it is.

Yeah, it's jealousy *shaking head*

Way to leave out the rest of my posit, OR THE ORIGINAL POSIT!!! Typical right winger


America s wealthiest families smash income ceiling middle-class left far behind Page 68 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


"Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. "

LOL

IF you consider income that the top 1% had from 1945-1980 was 6%-9% of the pie but 23% by 2007 thanks to GOPers policies, you are correct! lol

August 29 2006
Wealth gap widens

Chasm between wealthiest households and everyone else has grown more than 50% since the early 1960s.

In the early 1960s, the top 1 percent of households in terms of net worth held 125 times the median wealth in the United States. Today, that gap has grown to 190 times.

The top 20 percent of wealth-holding households, meanwhile, held 15 times the overall median wealth in the early 1960s. By 2004, that gap had grown to 23 times.

"In 21st century America, wealth begets wealth, and those without wealth find it farther out of reach," the report's authors write.

Wealth gap has widened more than 50 during past 40 years - Aug. 29 2006




Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


I KNOW, INCOME ISN'T WEALTH *SHAKING HEAD*

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

DUMBASS RIGHT WINGERS ARE CRAZY SUCKING OFF THE BILLIONAIRES. I HOPE YOU AREN'T SWALLOWING?

I see you're bit confused. Lefties are constantly trying to present income gap as wealth gap. Those are two different things. And if you're not confused, then you're doing it on purpose.

Here is the nice link for you. It explain exactly what you need to know. Of course, I still expect you'll learn nothing and keep beating the same drum.

Gosh, How'd I know you'd beat that drum? lol

DOESN'T refute the FACT that the INCOME inequality hasn't been this bad since the first GOP great depression, lol

 

[RKMBrown]

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes

In 2011, the top 1 percent of households by cash income received a whopping 75.1 percent of the benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends. The broad middle class—defined here as the middle 60 percent of households by cash income—received only 3.9 percent of that benefit.

The tax expenditure of the 1 Economic Policy Institute

Top 0.1% earns half of capital gains. So what?
They're ones that invest most, so whats the problem? Jealousy?

The question that liberals are avoiding is, would rest of us necessarily be better off if the 1% isn't getting richer? I think that 99% would most likely be in the same place economically if 1% weren't doing better. Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. Lefties are screaming at the top of their lungs about something they insist is an issue but never actually show how it is.

Yeah, it's jealousy *shaking head*

Way to leave out the rest of my posit, OR THE ORIGINAL POSIT!!! Typical right winger


America s wealthiest families smash income ceiling middle-class left far behind Page 68 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


"Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. "

LOL

IF you consider income that the top 1% had from 1945-1980 was 6%-9% of the pie but 23% by 2007 thanks to GOPers policies, you are correct! lol

August 29 2006
Wealth gap widens

Chasm between wealthiest households and everyone else has grown more than 50% since the early 1960s.

In the early 1960s, the top 1 percent of households in terms of net worth held 125 times the median wealth in the United States. Today, that gap has grown to 190 times.

The top 20 percent of wealth-holding households, meanwhile, held 15 times the overall median wealth in the early 1960s. By 2004, that gap had grown to 23 times.

"In 21st century America, wealth begets wealth, and those without wealth find it farther out of reach," the report's authors write.

Wealth gap has widened more than 50 during past 40 years - Aug. 29 2006




Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


I KNOW, INCOME ISN'T WEALTH *SHAKING HEAD*

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

DUMBASS RIGHT WINGERS ARE CRAZY SUCKING OFF THE BILLIONAIRES. I HOPE YOU AREN'T SWALLOWING?

I see you're bit confused. Lefties are constantly trying to present income gap as wealth gap. Those are two different things. And if you're not confused, then you're doing it on purpose.

Here is the nice link for you. It explain exactly what you need to know. Of course, I still expect you'll learn nothing and keep beating the same drum.

Most democrat voters don't understand the difference between personal income, capital income, and wealth. Most democrat voters don't understand the difference between revenue and profit. Most democrat voters are for sale, and they are really cheap.

 

[AntiParty]

You trying to be as stupid as the rabbit? You did it.

How the fuck do you pay taxes on a loss? ie, "corporation that had a net taxable income of minus $10 billion?"
That sentence doesn't even make sense. Net taxable income on a 10 billion loss. Good god you are dumb.

The drones who keep talking about "effective tax" rate obviously aren't using net taxable income to do the calculation. Otherwise they would come up with a tax rate of 35%, so they must be using gross revenues. If that's the case, then a company with a positive effective tax rate could easily have suffered a loss.

Of course, none of you turds will show how the calculation is done. Until you do, you're a bunch of lying assholes.

Tax rates are different than tax rebates or tax deductions.

Actual paid is what he is discussing.

26 top American corporations paid no federal income tax from 08 to 12 report RT USA

The process is America giving tax breaks for "good spending" and accountants manipulating the system just like a "Extreme Couponing".

The grocery store is surprised when they realized someone could buy a cart full for no money via an EXPLOIT.

Yet you don't seem to understand this on a bigger and more important scale..I mean, Pepco had a -33% tax rate last year after these adjustments......

Or perhaps you think America should allow Pepco to pay no taxes AND give them money..........

After which adjustments? I'm certain your claims are total horseshit. They are fabricated from whole cloth. Please show the math where Pepco's effective tax rate is calculated. Show their taxable income for each year discussed, and show the amount of tax paid to the IRS. I guarantee you that you won't be able to pull out any -33 % figure based on the inputs.

^Holy cow, this kid needs to do his own homework.

I'm sure you think Pepco is the only one because this is the first time YOU have heard about this.

Try to do more homework on the topic before discussing it. You just sound dumb.

In other words, you can't do the math and show how the figure was calculated.

Just as I thought.

All these claims about "effective tax rate" are utter horseshit.

This isn't a taxation thread and poverty vs. prosperity hasn't been a tax issue since Robin Hood.

If you think taxation is keeping you from being rich.................................you might be a T-Bagger.

 

[AntiParty]

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes

In 2011, the top 1 percent of households by cash income received a whopping 75.1 percent of the benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends. The broad middle class—defined here as the middle 60 percent of households by cash income—received only 3.9 percent of that benefit.

The tax expenditure of the 1 Economic Policy Institute

Top 0.1% earns half of capital gains. So what?
They're ones that invest most, so whats the problem? Jealousy?

The question that liberals are avoiding is, would rest of us necessarily be better off if the 1% isn't getting richer? I think that 99% would most likely be in the same place economically if 1% weren't doing better. Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. Lefties are screaming at the top of their lungs about something they insist is an issue but never actually show how it is.

Yeah, it's jealousy *shaking head*

Way to leave out the rest of my posit, OR THE ORIGINAL POSIT!!! Typical right winger


America s wealthiest families smash income ceiling middle-class left far behind Page 68 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


"Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. "

LOL

IF you consider income that the top 1% had from 1945-1980 was 6%-9% of the pie but 23% by 2007 thanks to GOPers policies, you are correct! lol

August 29 2006
Wealth gap widens

Chasm between wealthiest households and everyone else has grown more than 50% since the early 1960s.

In the early 1960s, the top 1 percent of households in terms of net worth held 125 times the median wealth in the United States. Today, that gap has grown to 190 times.

The top 20 percent of wealth-holding households, meanwhile, held 15 times the overall median wealth in the early 1960s. By 2004, that gap had grown to 23 times.

"In 21st century America, wealth begets wealth, and those without wealth find it farther out of reach," the report's authors write.

Wealth gap has widened more than 50 during past 40 years - Aug. 29 2006




Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


I KNOW, INCOME ISN'T WEALTH *SHAKING HEAD*

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

DUMBASS RIGHT WINGERS ARE CRAZY SUCKING OFF THE BILLIONAIRES. I HOPE YOU AREN'T SWALLOWING?

I see you're bit confused. Lefties are constantly trying to present income gap as wealth gap. Those are two different things. And if you're not confused, then you're doing it on purpose.

Here is the nice link for you. It explain exactly what you need to know. Of course, I still expect you'll learn nothing and keep beating the same drum.

Most democrat voters don't understand the difference between personal income, capital income, and wealth. Most democrat voters don't understand the difference between revenue and profit. Most democrat voters are for sale, and they are really cheap.

Most Democrat voters would call out the opposite..

They notice that person that is broke and for sale. Unions say it all.

YOU don't know the difference between Capital income and team based Capital income. That is all.

 

[Dad2three]

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes

In 2011, the top 1 percent of households by cash income received a whopping 75.1 percent of the benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends. The broad middle class—defined here as the middle 60 percent of households by cash income—received only 3.9 percent of that benefit.

The tax expenditure of the 1 Economic Policy Institute

Top 0.1% earns half of capital gains. So what?
They're ones that invest most, so whats the problem? Jealousy?

The question that liberals are avoiding is, would rest of us necessarily be better off if the 1% isn't getting richer? I think that 99% would most likely be in the same place economically if 1% weren't doing better. Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. Lefties are screaming at the top of their lungs about something they insist is an issue but never actually show how it is.

Yeah, it's jealousy *shaking head*

Way to leave out the rest of my posit, OR THE ORIGINAL POSIT!!! Typical right winger


America s wealthiest families smash income ceiling middle-class left far behind Page 68 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


"Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. "

LOL

IF you consider income that the top 1% had from 1945-1980 was 6%-9% of the pie but 23% by 2007 thanks to GOPers policies, you are correct! lol

August 29 2006
Wealth gap widens

Chasm between wealthiest households and everyone else has grown more than 50% since the early 1960s.

In the early 1960s, the top 1 percent of households in terms of net worth held 125 times the median wealth in the United States. Today, that gap has grown to 190 times.

The top 20 percent of wealth-holding households, meanwhile, held 15 times the overall median wealth in the early 1960s. By 2004, that gap had grown to 23 times.

"In 21st century America, wealth begets wealth, and those without wealth find it farther out of reach," the report's authors write.

Wealth gap has widened more than 50 during past 40 years - Aug. 29 2006




Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


I KNOW, INCOME ISN'T WEALTH *SHAKING HEAD*

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

DUMBASS RIGHT WINGERS ARE CRAZY SUCKING OFF THE BILLIONAIRES. I HOPE YOU AREN'T SWALLOWING?

I see you're bit confused. Lefties are constantly trying to present income gap as wealth gap. Those are two different things. And if you're not confused, then you're doing it on purpose.

Here is the nice link for you. It explain exactly what you need to know. Of course, I still expect you'll learn nothing and keep beating the same drum.

Most democrat voters don't understand the difference between personal income, capital income, and wealth. Most democrat voters don't understand the difference between revenue and profit. Most democrat voters are for sale, and they are really cheap.

lol, I thought the meme was Dems were the party of the rich?

But REALLY? From the group whose leaders claim increasing taxes on the 'job creators' would hit those working class people who GROSS $250,000 a year in a Biz?


Republicans have for years greatly exaggerated the extent to which higher taxes on upper-income individuals would fall on owners of small businesses. And we have repeatedly pointed out the inflated figures they’ve used in the past.

This time, Boehner was responding specifically to a question about a “millionaires” tax. The exchange was on ABC’s “This Week” on Nov. 6.

Christiane Amanpour: Some 75 percent of Americans agree with an increase in tax on millionaires as a way to pay for these jobs provisions. Do you not feel that by opposing it you’re basically out of step with the American people on this issue?

Boehner: Well, over half of the people who would be taxed under this plan are, in fact, small-business people. And as a result, you’re going to basically increase taxes on the very people that we’re hoping will reinvest in our economy and create jobs. That’s the real crux of the problem.


Boehner 8217 s Big Stretch on Small Business

 

[RKMBrown]

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes

In 2011, the top 1 percent of households by cash income received a whopping 75.1 percent of the benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends. The broad middle class—defined here as the middle 60 percent of households by cash income—received only 3.9 percent of that benefit.

The tax expenditure of the 1 Economic Policy Institute

Top 0.1% earns half of capital gains. So what?
They're ones that invest most, so whats the problem? Jealousy?

The question that liberals are avoiding is, would rest of us necessarily be better off if the 1% isn't getting richer? I think that 99% would most likely be in the same place economically if 1% weren't doing better. Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. Lefties are screaming at the top of their lungs about something they insist is an issue but never actually show how it is.

Yeah, it's jealousy *shaking head*

Way to leave out the rest of my posit, OR THE ORIGINAL POSIT!!! Typical right winger


America s wealthiest families smash income ceiling middle-class left far behind Page 68 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


"Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. "

LOL

IF you consider income that the top 1% had from 1945-1980 was 6%-9% of the pie but 23% by 2007 thanks to GOPers policies, you are correct! lol

August 29 2006
Wealth gap widens

Chasm between wealthiest households and everyone else has grown more than 50% since the early 1960s.

In the early 1960s, the top 1 percent of households in terms of net worth held 125 times the median wealth in the United States. Today, that gap has grown to 190 times.

The top 20 percent of wealth-holding households, meanwhile, held 15 times the overall median wealth in the early 1960s. By 2004, that gap had grown to 23 times.

"In 21st century America, wealth begets wealth, and those without wealth find it farther out of reach," the report's authors write.

Wealth gap has widened more than 50 during past 40 years - Aug. 29 2006




Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory

The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


I KNOW, INCOME ISN'T WEALTH *SHAKING HEAD*

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

DUMBASS RIGHT WINGERS ARE CRAZY SUCKING OFF THE BILLIONAIRES. I HOPE YOU AREN'T SWALLOWING?

I see you're bit confused. Lefties are constantly trying to present income gap as wealth gap. Those are two different things. And if you're not confused, then you're doing it on purpose.

Here is the nice link for you. It explain exactly what you need to know. Of course, I still expect you'll learn nothing and keep beating the same drum.

Most democrat voters don't understand the difference between personal income, capital income, and wealth. Most democrat voters don't understand the difference between revenue and profit. Most democrat voters are for sale, and they are really cheap.

Most Democrat voters would call out the opposite..

They notice that person that is broke and for sale. Unions say it all.

YOU don't know the difference between Capital income and team based Capital income. That is all.

Did any of that make sense when it was in your head?

 

[bripat9643]

The drones who keep talking about "effective tax" rate obviously aren't using net taxable income to do the calculation. Otherwise they would come up with a tax rate of 35%, so they must be using gross revenues. If that's the case, then a company with a positive effective tax rate could easily have suffered a loss.

Of course, none of you turds will show how the calculation is done. Until you do, you're a bunch of lying assholes.

Tax rates are different than tax rebates or tax deductions.

Actual paid is what he is discussing.

26 top American corporations paid no federal income tax from 08 to 12 report RT USA

The process is America giving tax breaks for "good spending" and accountants manipulating the system just like a "Extreme Couponing".

The grocery store is surprised when they realized someone could buy a cart full for no money via an EXPLOIT.

Yet you don't seem to understand this on a bigger and more important scale..I mean, Pepco had a -33% tax rate last year after these adjustments......

Or perhaps you think America should allow Pepco to pay no taxes AND give them money..........

After which adjustments? I'm certain your claims are total horseshit. They are fabricated from whole cloth. Please show the math where Pepco's effective tax rate is calculated. Show their taxable income for each year discussed, and show the amount of tax paid to the IRS. I guarantee you that you won't be able to pull out any -33 % figure based on the inputs.

^Holy cow, this kid needs to do his own homework.

I'm sure you think Pepco is the only one because this is the first time YOU have heard about this.

Try to do more homework on the topic before discussing it. You just sound dumb.

In other words, you can't do the math and show how the figure was calculated.

Just as I thought.

All these claims about "effective tax rate" are utter horseshit.

This isn't a taxation thread and poverty vs. prosperity hasn't been a tax issue since Robin Hood.

If you think taxation is keeping you from being rich.................................you might be a T-Bagger.

Only a liberal moron could possibly believe that taxes don't keep people from becoming rich.

 

[JoeNormal]

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes

In 2011, the top 1 percent of households by cash income received a whopping 75.1 percent of the benefit from the preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends. The broad middle class—defined here as the middle 60 percent of households by cash income—received only 3.9 percent of that benefit.

The tax expenditure of the 1 Economic Policy Institute

Top 0.1% earns half of capital gains. So what?
They're ones that invest most, so whats the problem? Jealousy?

The question that liberals are avoiding is, would rest of us necessarily be better off if the 1% isn't getting richer? I think that 99% would most likely be in the same place economically if 1% weren't doing better. Wealth distribution hasn't changed more than a few percentage points in last 40 years and not just in US, but pretty much everywhere. Lefties are screaming at the top of their lungs about something they insist is an issue but never actually show how it is.

Productivity has risen dramatically since the mid 70's when average wages stagnated. The middle class would be WAY better off if these gains were shared more equitably.

 

[Ame®icano]

Gosh, How'd I know you'd beat that drum? lol

DOESN'T refute the FACT that the INCOME inequality hasn't been this bad since the first GOP great depression, lol

Why it's bad? Oh, you'r problem is that someone makes much more money then you. While calling them greedy rich, you're masking your own greed for what they have.

I'm not arguing that rich shouldn't be taxed. Of course they should. But lefties hysteria about robbing them for more of what is theirs is pure unadulterated greed. People like you just getting worked up over a pile of communist propaganda without even realizing that you're just useful idiots.

 

[Dad2three]

Gosh, How'd I know you'd beat that drum? lol

DOESN'T refute the FACT that the INCOME inequality hasn't been this bad since the first GOP great depression, lol

Why it's bad? Oh, you'r problem is that someone makes much more money then you. While calling them greedy rich, you're masking your own greed for what they have.

I'm not arguing that rich shouldn't be taxed. Of course they should. But lefties hysteria about robbing them for more of what is theirs is pure unadulterated greed. People like you just getting worked up over a pile of communist propaganda without even realizing that you're just useful idiots.

"propaganda without even realizing that you're just useful idiots"


Stop projecting Bubba

Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html


ONCE MORE:

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”


Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

 

[OnePercenter]

Wrong. You're adding an additional 30% of revenue onto their expenses.

Is that Canadian math?

Follow along goofball.

Under my plan. A company with 300 or less employees.

A $10M/yr revenue company will have a $3M federal tax.

Subtract employee costs and state/local taxes 1 to 1 from the $3M reducing federal tax to zero.

If employee and state/local taxes are more than $3M (which they are) the feds give a subsidy check back.

That would be true if you're paying tax on revenue. But you're not. You're paying tax on profits...

That was quoting part of my plan.


-Base Federal tax or corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 400 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

You can't tax the revenue.

If you produce 1 million widgets at production cost of 95 cents apiece (material, labor, utilities, expenses), and sell them at $1 apiece, your revenue is $1 million, but your profit is $50k. If you tax revenue at 30% company will be at $200k in red. What would happen is, company will lower wages 20% just to break even.

I'll go slow.

My company grossed $100M 2014. Under my plan, the federal tax would be 30% of revenue, which would be $30M. Also under my plan, employee expenses and state/local tax ($38M) are deductible dollar for dollar from federal tax. That would make my federal tax obligation zero, and I would receive a check for $8M from the feds. I could hire more people with a net cost of zero.