Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are not providing an intellectual conversation. You are regurgitating a talking point.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.
You're just a typical conservative with no argument, just bash people who think differently than yourself. Try having an intelligent conversation for once.
No I don't, where are you getting this from? Oh wait, partisan hogwash.Wealth is just a means to an end, it doesn't define who people are.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.
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.
You are not providing an intellectual conversation. You are regurgitating a talking point.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.
You're just a typical conservative with no argument, just bash people who think differently than yourself. Try having an intelligent conversation for once.
Other than emotional need, on what do you base the notion that the federal government should be used to provide anything to an individual?
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]
You are not providing an intellectual conversation. You are regurgitating a talking point.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.
You're just a typical conservative with no argument, just bash people who think differently than yourself. Try having an intelligent conversation for once.
Other than emotional need, on what do you base the notion that the federal government should be used to provide anything to an individual?
Security.
without security of all types there is no state.
Even if they provide the illusion of security there is a direct effect on the individual.
After all, greed is an emotional need.
What is your notion as to what the federal gov't could/ should provide the individual?
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]
Says the person who ran no business ever.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.
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.
We need to abolish the #jewish controlled federal reserve banking system that is impoverishing the American people and concentrating wealth with Wall Street.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]
I have a feeling he will be posting a lot in the next 500 days, a greenbeard sock? I should check the other political boards.I wonder if the Op is being paid by Hillary or Sanders?
they go around pushing all the DNC talking points
I have a feeling he will be posting a lot in the next 500 days, a greenbeard sock? I should check the other political boards.I wonder if the Op is being paid by Hillary or Sanders?
they go around pushing all the DNC talking points
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]
None of these things protects the rights of the people and so, no, the government does not need to do them.Mr H, the government needs to reinvest into strong social programs, single payer healthcare, social security, food stamps, education, housing support for the poor, investments into infrastructure and medicial research..
Socialism is state-enforced involuntary servitude.when is the last time you saw a left wing socialist pig have an original thought and not push a democrat talking point?
Socialism sucks. It takes power away from we the people. The op is a braiwashed hypocritical dooosh pushing bullshit socialist propaganda.
Socialists see the problem caused by crony capitalism, but their solution is essentially greater crony capitalism by another name.Socialism is state-enforced involuntary servitude.when is the last time you saw a left wing socialist pig have an original thought and not push a democrat talking point?
Socialism sucks. It takes power away from we the people. The op is a braiwashed hypocritical dooosh pushing bullshit socialist propaganda.
Last I looked, the Constitution prevented involuntary servitude.
Socialists see the problem caused by crony capitalism, but their solution is essentially greater crony capitalism by another name.Socialism is state-enforced involuntary servitude.when is the last time you saw a left wing socialist pig have an original thought and not push a democrat talking point?
Socialism sucks. It takes power away from we the people. The op is a braiwashed hypocritical dooosh pushing bullshit socialist propaganda.
Last I looked, the Constitution prevented involuntary servitude.
