As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real.

[williepete]

I find your posts to be very entertaining.

Out of curiosity, what form of coercion do you propose to separate that which is earned from those who have earned it in order to give it to those who don't earn? Concerning the socialist demands in your Eugene V. Debs signature, what form of coercion do propose to fulfill them?

 

[Socialist]

I find your posts to be very entertaining.

Out of curiosity, what form of coercion do you propose to separate that which is earned from those who have earned it in order to give it to those who don't earn? Concerning the socialist demands in your Eugene V. Debs signature, what form of coercion do propose to fulfill them?

How do you propose to coerce people into alienating themselves from their labor for pathetic wages?

 

[williepete]

Bet you were good at dodge ball.

 

[bendog]

I can only imagine people trying to justify this hogwash, the rich are getting richer while the working class is getting crushed.
As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

One of the cornerstones of American income tax policy is that taxes are progressive. People who make more money devote a higher share of their income to federal income taxes than people who make less money. That allows for a redistribution of wealth that lowers inequality.

That's how it's supposed to work, at least.

But new data out this spring from the IRS gives us a closer look of how the income tax works at the pinnacle of the income distribution -- not just the top 1 percent, or even the top 0.1 percent, but among the rarified realm of the 0.01 and even the 0.001 percent. Those latter two categories are new in the IRS report this year, reflecting a growing public interest in the ultra-wealthy and their effects on the economy.

The IRS found that as you go from being merely wealthy (the 1 percent) to super-duper wealthy (the 0.001 percent), your average federal income tax rate actually goes down. In other words, the progressivity of the federal income tax starts to fall apart at the upper reaches of the income distribution. Take a look.

a whole host of deductions -- like the mortgage on a yacht, for instance -- and other tax benefits that many people don't qualify for.

Chief among these is the lower tax rate on capital gains -- think investment income. That maxes out at about 24 percent when you factor in a Medicare surtax that applies to some investment income. But wages are taxed at a top rate of 39.6 percent. Since many of the super-rich get most of their earnings from investments, they disproportionately reap the benefits of that lower capital gains tax rate.

In the year this data was compiled, 2012, the top capital gains rate was lower still, at 15 percent. So it will be interesting to see whether the recent capital gains rate hike -- up to a maximum of 24 percent -- has much of an impact on these trends.

Some politicians, most notably Bernie Sanders, have called for higher tax rates on the super-rich. Sanders would like to see the top income tax rate rise to 90 percent, where it was back in the 1940s and 1950s.

But the numbers above suggest that simply ratcheting up the income tax and ignoring capital gains won't take a huge bite out of inequality, particularly not among the super-rich. If policymakers wanted to really take more from the ultra-rich, they would tax investment income much more progressively.

This post was updated to clarify that the top capital gains tax rate in 2012 was 15 percent.
/QUOTE]

That's why I appreciated g5000's link and suggestion #2.

 

[williepete]

Socialist,

Thanks for educating be about Eugene V. Debs. He led an interesting life. I found the below part of his history telling. His highest vote count was 6% which was admirable. But once the American people saw the bloody results of the Bolshevik Revolution and what it brought, the American Socialist party fell apart. They wanted no part of a similar bloodbath. Do you think the American people are up for that today?


Between 1900 and 1920 Debs was the Socialist party’s standard-bearer in five presidential elections. In 1912, in a four-way race with Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft, he received 6 percent of the vote-his highest total ever. Between campaigns, Debs was a tireless speaker and organizer for the party, and he traveled the nation defending workers in their strikes and industrial disputes. Although many workers enthusiastically applauded Debs’s vision, relatively few endorsed his political program. He conducted his last campaign for president as prisoner 9653 in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary while serving ten years for his opposition to World War I. He received nearly a million votes. As the American Socialist party fragmented in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution, Debs remained with the party he had led for so many years.

Eugene V. Debs - Facts Summary - HISTORY.com

 

[Socialist]

Socialist,

Thanks for educating be about Eugene V. Debs. He led an interesting life. I found the below part of his history telling. His highest vote count was 6% which was admirable. But once the American people saw the bloody results of the Bolshevik Revolution and what it brought, the American Socialist party fell apart.


Between 1900 and 1920 Debs was the Socialist party’s standard-bearer in five presidential elections. In 1912, in a four-way race with Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft, he received 6 percent of the vote-his highest total ever. Between campaigns, Debs was a tireless speaker and organizer for the party, and he traveled the nation defending workers in their strikes and industrial disputes. Although many workers enthusiastically applauded Debs’s vision, relatively few endorsed his political program. He conducted his last campaign for president as prisoner 9653 in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary while serving ten years for his opposition to World War I. He received nearly a million votes. As the American Socialist party fragmented in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution, Debs remained with the party he had led for so many years.

Eugene V. Debs - Facts Summary - HISTORY.com

The socialist party fell apart due to fear mongering and suppression. The bolshevik revolution was a violent revolution to overthrow the tsars, when the people were in virtually agrarian feudalism with no women's rights, healthcare, literacy.. The conditions were correct.

 

[williepete]

The socialist party fell apart due to fear mongering and suppression.

That excuse is not worthy enough to call lame. The American people weren't buying the collectivist utopian lie and they aren't today.

Back to my earlier questions: What form of coercion do you propose to separate that which is earned from those who have earned it in order to give it to those who don't earn? Concerning the socialist demands in your Eugene V. Debs signature, what form of coercion do propose to fulfill them?

 

[Socialist]

The socialist party fell apart due to fear mongering and suppression.

That excuse is not worthy enough to call lame. The American people weren't buying the collectivist utopian lie and they aren't today.

Back to my earlier questions: What form of coercion do you propose to separate that which is earned from those who have earned it in order to give it to those who don't earn? Concerning the socialist demands in your Eugene V. Debs signature, what form of coercion do propose to fulfill them?

"Give it to those who don't" I think you need to address what this actually is, ALL socialism calls for is collective ownership of production, that's it.

 

[williepete]

I think you need to address what this actually is, ALL socialism calls for is collective ownership of production, that's it.

Boy, you just wont answer the questions will you.

Here ya go for the third time. Let's see how serious you are.

What form of coercion do you propose to separate that which is earned from those who have earned it in order to give it to those who don't earn? Concerning the socialist demands in your Eugene V. Debs signature, what form of coercion do propose to fulfill them?

 

[Socialist]

I think you need to address what this actually is, ALL socialism calls for is collective ownership of production, that's it.

Boy, you just wont answer the questions will you.

Here ya go for the third time. Let's see how serious you are.

What form of coercion do you propose to separate that which is earned from those who have earned it in order to give it to those who don't earn? Concerning the socialist demands in your Eugene V. Debs signature, what form of coercion do propose to fulfill them?

You keep saying coercion, coercion, coercion, and the word "earned" as if the CEO of a steel company earned and made all of that, not the laborer through every single process. I urge you to look into democratic socialism, and since you ignored my question on capitalist coercion, I'll ignore yours.

 

[williepete]

Three strikes, you're out.

If you were so proud of how to implement your utopian workers paradise, you'd be shouting it from the roof tops.

Gotta go now. There are proletarians out there that need oppressing.

 

[Ravi]

I can only imagine people trying to justify this hogwash, the rich are getting richer while the working class is getting crushed.
As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

One of the cornerstones of American income tax policy is that taxes are progressive. People who make more money devote a higher share of their income to federal income taxes than people who make less money. That allows for a redistribution of wealth that lowers inequality.

That's how it's supposed to work, at least.

But new data out this spring from the IRS gives us a closer look of how the income tax works at the pinnacle of the income distribution -- not just the top 1 percent, or even the top 0.1 percent, but among the rarified realm of the 0.01 and even the 0.001 percent. Those latter two categories are new in the IRS report this year, reflecting a growing public interest in the ultra-wealthy and their effects on the economy.

The IRS found that as you go from being merely wealthy (the 1 percent) to super-duper wealthy (the 0.001 percent), your average federal income tax rate actually goes down. In other words, the progressivity of the federal income tax starts to fall apart at the upper reaches of the income distribution. Take a look.

a whole host of deductions -- like the mortgage on a yacht, for instance -- and other tax benefits that many people don't qualify for.

Chief among these is the lower tax rate on capital gains -- think investment income. That maxes out at about 24 percent when you factor in a Medicare surtax that applies to some investment income. But wages are taxed at a top rate of 39.6 percent. Since many of the super-rich get most of their earnings from investments, they disproportionately reap the benefits of that lower capital gains tax rate.

In the year this data was compiled, 2012, the top capital gains rate was lower still, at 15 percent. So it will be interesting to see whether the recent capital gains rate hike -- up to a maximum of 24 percent -- has much of an impact on these trends.

Some politicians, most notably Bernie Sanders, have called for higher tax rates on the super-rich. Sanders would like to see the top income tax rate rise to 90 percent, where it was back in the 1940s and 1950s.

But the numbers above suggest that simply ratcheting up the income tax and ignoring capital gains won't take a huge bite out of inequality, particularly not among the super-rich. If policymakers wanted to really take more from the ultra-rich, they would tax investment income much more progressively.

This post was updated to clarify that the top capital gains tax rate in 2012 was 15 percent.
/QUOTE]

That's damn funny. There is a thread here about why do we have to subsidize gay marriage and none of the nits care that we subsidize yacht owners.

People are a laugh riot.

 

[hipeter924]

I can only imagine people trying to justify this hogwash, the rich are getting richer while the working class is getting crushed.
As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

One of the cornerstones of American income tax policy is that taxes are progressive. People who make more money devote a higher share of their income to federal income taxes than people who make less money. That allows for a redistribution of wealth that lowers inequality.

That's how it's supposed to work, at least.

But new data out this spring from the IRS gives us a closer look of how the income tax works at the pinnacle of the income distribution -- not just the top 1 percent, or even the top 0.1 percent, but among the rarified realm of the 0.01 and even the 0.001 percent. Those latter two categories are new in the IRS report this year, reflecting a growing public interest in the ultra-wealthy and their effects on the economy.

The IRS found that as you go from being merely wealthy (the 1 percent) to super-duper wealthy (the 0.001 percent), your average federal income tax rate actually goes down. In other words, the progressivity of the federal income tax starts to fall apart at the upper reaches of the income distribution. Take a look.

a whole host of deductions -- like the mortgage on a yacht, for instance -- and other tax benefits that many people don't qualify for.

Chief among these is the lower tax rate on capital gains -- think investment income. That maxes out at about 24 percent when you factor in a Medicare surtax that applies to some investment income. But wages are taxed at a top rate of 39.6 percent. Since many of the super-rich get most of their earnings from investments, they disproportionately reap the benefits of that lower capital gains tax rate.

In the year this data was compiled, 2012, the top capital gains rate was lower still, at 15 percent. So it will be interesting to see whether the recent capital gains rate hike -- up to a maximum of 24 percent -- has much of an impact on these trends.

Some politicians, most notably Bernie Sanders, have called for higher tax rates on the super-rich. Sanders would like to see the top income tax rate rise to 90 percent, where it was back in the 1940s and 1950s.

But the numbers above suggest that simply ratcheting up the income tax and ignoring capital gains won't take a huge bite out of inequality, particularly not among the super-rich. If policymakers wanted to really take more from the ultra-rich, they would tax investment income much more progressively.

This post was updated to clarify that the top capital gains tax rate in 2012 was 15 percent.
/QUOTE]

Must be a bitch waking up every morning consumed with envy. What a pathetic soul you must be.

Wealth is just a means to an end, it doesn't define who people are.

There are plenty of people with extreme wealth that want to tear down the ladders and make it harder for anyone to get ahead aka 'divide and conquer', and there are also people with extreme wealth that want to make things easier and not fall back into feudalism.

 

[OKTexas]

I can only imagine people trying to justify this hogwash, the rich are getting richer while the working class is getting crushed.
As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

One of the cornerstones of American income tax policy is that taxes are progressive. People who make more money devote a higher share of their income to federal income taxes than people who make less money. That allows for a redistribution of wealth that lowers inequality.

That's how it's supposed to work, at least.

But new data out this spring from the IRS gives us a closer look of how the income tax works at the pinnacle of the income distribution -- not just the top 1 percent, or even the top 0.1 percent, but among the rarified realm of the 0.01 and even the 0.001 percent. Those latter two categories are new in the IRS report this year, reflecting a growing public interest in the ultra-wealthy and their effects on the economy.

The IRS found that as you go from being merely wealthy (the 1 percent) to super-duper wealthy (the 0.001 percent), your average federal income tax rate actually goes down. In other words, the progressivity of the federal income tax starts to fall apart at the upper reaches of the income distribution. Take a look.

a whole host of deductions -- like the mortgage on a yacht, for instance -- and other tax benefits that many people don't qualify for.

Chief among these is the lower tax rate on capital gains -- think investment income. That maxes out at about 24 percent when you factor in a Medicare surtax that applies to some investment income. But wages are taxed at a top rate of 39.6 percent. Since many of the super-rich get most of their earnings from investments, they disproportionately reap the benefits of that lower capital gains tax rate.

In the year this data was compiled, 2012, the top capital gains rate was lower still, at 15 percent. So it will be interesting to see whether the recent capital gains rate hike -- up to a maximum of 24 percent -- has much of an impact on these trends.

Some politicians, most notably Bernie Sanders, have called for higher tax rates on the super-rich. Sanders would like to see the top income tax rate rise to 90 percent, where it was back in the 1940s and 1950s.

But the numbers above suggest that simply ratcheting up the income tax and ignoring capital gains won't take a huge bite out of inequality, particularly not among the super-rich. If policymakers wanted to really take more from the ultra-rich, they would tax investment income much more progressively.

This post was updated to clarify that the top capital gains tax rate in 2012 was 15 percent.
/QUOTE]

Must be a bitch waking up every morning consumed with envy. What a pathetic soul you must be.

Wealth is just a means to an end, it doesn't define who people are.

There are plenty of people with extreme wealth that want to tear down the ladders and make it harder for anyone to get ahead aka 'divide and conquer', and there are also people with extreme wealth that want to make things easier and not fall back into feudalism.

You might want to explain that to the OP, the boy thinks anyone with more than him is evil.

 

[Socialist]

I can only imagine people trying to justify this hogwash, the rich are getting richer while the working class is getting crushed.
As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

One of the cornerstones of American income tax policy is that taxes are progressive. People who make more money devote a higher share of their income to federal income taxes than people who make less money. That allows for a redistribution of wealth that lowers inequality.

That's how it's supposed to work, at least.

But new data out this spring from the IRS gives us a closer look of how the income tax works at the pinnacle of the income distribution -- not just the top 1 percent, or even the top 0.1 percent, but among the rarified realm of the 0.01 and even the 0.001 percent. Those latter two categories are new in the IRS report this year, reflecting a growing public interest in the ultra-wealthy and their effects on the economy.

The IRS found that as you go from being merely wealthy (the 1 percent) to super-duper wealthy (the 0.001 percent), your average federal income tax rate actually goes down. In other words, the progressivity of the federal income tax starts to fall apart at the upper reaches of the income distribution. Take a look.

a whole host of deductions -- like the mortgage on a yacht, for instance -- and other tax benefits that many people don't qualify for.

Chief among these is the lower tax rate on capital gains -- think investment income. That maxes out at about 24 percent when you factor in a Medicare surtax that applies to some investment income. But wages are taxed at a top rate of 39.6 percent. Since many of the super-rich get most of their earnings from investments, they disproportionately reap the benefits of that lower capital gains tax rate.

In the year this data was compiled, 2012, the top capital gains rate was lower still, at 15 percent. So it will be interesting to see whether the recent capital gains rate hike -- up to a maximum of 24 percent -- has much of an impact on these trends.

Some politicians, most notably Bernie Sanders, have called for higher tax rates on the super-rich. Sanders would like to see the top income tax rate rise to 90 percent, where it was back in the 1940s and 1950s.

But the numbers above suggest that simply ratcheting up the income tax and ignoring capital gains won't take a huge bite out of inequality, particularly not among the super-rich. If policymakers wanted to really take more from the ultra-rich, they would tax investment income much more progressively.

This post was updated to clarify that the top capital gains tax rate in 2012 was 15 percent.
/QUOTE]

Must be a bitch waking up every morning consumed with envy. What a pathetic soul you must be.

Wealth is just a means to an end, it doesn't define who people are.

There are plenty of people with extreme wealth that want to tear down the ladders and make it harder for anyone to get ahead aka 'divide and conquer', and there are also people with extreme wealth that want to make things easier and not fall back into feudalism.

You might want to explain that to the OP, the boy thinks anyone with more than him is evil.

No I don't, where are you getting this from? Oh wait, partisan hogwash.

 

[my2¢]

I'm for taxing only dead people.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And if they are taxed more, then what? The government is supposed to just hand it over to the working class?

Or should the government use it to incentivise business and industry so that they in turn can hire the "not working class"?

Oh- but we can't have that, because it's called

"corporate welfare" and "subsidies".

They already exist and contribute noting beyond their own ledgers.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I can only imagine people trying to justify this hogwash, the rich are getting richer while the working class is getting crushed.
As the rich become super-rich they pay lower taxes. For real. - The Washington Post

One of the cornerstones of American income tax policy is that taxes are progressive. People who make more money devote a higher share of their income to federal income taxes than people who make less money. That allows for a redistribution of wealth that lowers inequality.

That's how it's supposed to work, at least.

But new data out this spring from the IRS gives us a closer look of how the income tax works at the pinnacle of the income distribution -- not just the top 1 percent, or even the top 0.1 percent, but among the rarified realm of the 0.01 and even the 0.001 percent. Those latter two categories are new in the IRS report this year, reflecting a growing public interest in the ultra-wealthy and their effects on the economy.

The IRS found that as you go from being merely wealthy (the 1 percent) to super-duper wealthy (the 0.001 percent), your average federal income tax rate actually goes down. In other words, the progressivity of the federal income tax starts to fall apart at the upper reaches of the income distribution. Take a look.

a whole host of deductions -- like the mortgage on a yacht, for instance -- and other tax benefits that many people don't qualify for.

Chief among these is the lower tax rate on capital gains -- think investment income. That maxes out at about 24 percent when you factor in a Medicare surtax that applies to some investment income. But wages are taxed at a top rate of 39.6 percent. Since many of the super-rich get most of their earnings from investments, they disproportionately reap the benefits of that lower capital gains tax rate.

In the year this data was compiled, 2012, the top capital gains rate was lower still, at 15 percent. So it will be interesting to see whether the recent capital gains rate hike -- up to a maximum of 24 percent -- has much of an impact on these trends.

Some politicians, most notably Bernie Sanders, have called for higher tax rates on the super-rich. Sanders would like to see the top income tax rate rise to 90 percent, where it was back in the 1940s and 1950s.

But the numbers above suggest that simply ratcheting up the income tax and ignoring capital gains won't take a huge bite out of inequality, particularly not among the super-rich. If policymakers wanted to really take more from the ultra-rich, they would tax investment income much more progressively.

This post was updated to clarify that the top capital gains tax rate in 2012 was 15 percent.
/QUOTE]

Must be a bitch waking up every morning consumed with envy. What a pathetic soul you must be.

Envy/Resentment
Two sides of the same imaginary coin.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Every time taxes are cut for the upper percentage of earners, revenue to the Treasury goes up. If you really want to soak the rich lower tax rates across the board.

Straight up nonsense.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I think you need to address what this actually is, ALL socialism calls for is collective ownership of production, that's it.

Boy, you just wont answer the questions will you.

Here ya go for the third time. Let's see how serious you are.

What form of coercion do you propose to separate that which is earned from those who have earned it in order to give it to those who don't earn? Concerning the socialist demands in your Eugene V. Debs signature, what form of coercion do propose to fulfill them?

How about patriotism? How about honor? How about paying at least the same rate as your secretary?
Is that enough?