Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

[Newby]

Not to mention that your theory is a terrible gneralization and a bad assumption.

Actually, on a state-by-state basis you can see a comparison of Blue and Red states here as I mentioned above.

Your thread has nothing to do with welfare or low income people being one political view over another. Your thread is basic math, if a smaller population state receives an equal amount of federal dollars as a larger population state, obviously their dollars per capita are going to be higher, and more than likely they will not have paid as much in revenues as a higher population state. Guess what? Get rid of all the damn federal programs, move all of those responsibilities back to the states and the local levels where they should be and the problem corrects itself. The feds aren't getting their hands on everyone's money anymore and redistributing as they see fit. Tax dollars will stay in the state in which they were earned and will be spent there. Smaller federal government is the solution to your problem. Somehow I'm guessing you don't agree with a smaller federal government.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Why is it that so many people can't stand to be proven wrong? The way I figure it I am a better person for being proven wrong because I have learned something that I didn't know before.

who have you proven wrong?

You miss the point. WHY is it that so many people feel like they are less of a person if they are proven wrong? I have been proven wrong in the past and I don't feel that it LESSENED me as a person but that it has helped me to GROW and become more aware of my world.



One of my professors told us a way to think about learning.........imagine that this . is all of your knowledge and the area that touches that . is all that you know that you don't know. Then imagine this O is your knowledge and all the area arount that O is what you know that you don't know. So in essence the more aware you are of what you DON'T know the more you want to be informed. My learning doesn't stop at the end of a lecture or at posting my opinions on a message board quite the opposite. I WANT TO LEARN! If that means I am occasionally proven wrong then so what?

 

[TT16]

Could it be that the minimum wage will be raised and tied to inflation and the maximum wage will then be tied to the minimum wage. For Example, the maximum wage could be 60 times more than minimum wage. It seems that leaving it to the executives to set their own wages ends up with them taking much more than they are are worth and not leaving enough in society to keep the economy going.
When the minimum wage eventually reaches the ideal level and is raised as the cost of living goes up, this in itself will controll the excessive wages at the top. As the top folks raise their prices so that they can raise their wages, inflation will occur. As inflation occurs, the minimum wage earners and (*all in between) will also get a raise. * Especially Union Companies.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Could it be that the minimum wage will be raised and tied to inflation and the maximum wage will then be tied to the minimum wage. For Example, the maximum wage could be 60 times more than minimum wage. It seems that leaving it to the executives to set their own wages ends up with them taking much more than they are are worth and not leaving enough in society to keep the economy going.
When the minimum wage eventually reaches the ideal level and is raised as the cost of living goes up, this in itself will controll the excessive wages at the top. As the top folks raise their prices so that they can raise their wages, inflation will occur. As inflation occurs, the minimum wage earners and (*all in between) will also get a raise. * Especially Union Companies.

What we need to do is get the CEOs of other companies off the Board of Directors of their friends. The OUTRAGEOUS saleries and bonus plans need to END!!! And a "golden parachute" should be a "LEAD parachute".

 

[edthecynic]

I think you are a little confused, perhaps you should read everything over again?

Well, I'll take your word that you are not sharp enough to get it.

If as you claim the people at the bottom are Libs on welfare then there must be an offsetting number of Libs at the top for Libs to average 6% more income than CON$. So if the top and bottom are Libs the CON$ must be stuck in the middle only pretending to be the productive achievers at the top.

Where are you getting your numbers from? You are making a lot of assumptions, like those who live on welfare are being counted as 'liberals' to begin with. What constitutes a 'liberal' or a 'conservative'? Kind of funny that liberals are anti-capitalist, yet they earn more money (so you say), which indicates that they are excoriating their own when they talk about the 'rich' constantly and how they are raping the average guy. If what you are saying is true, they're the ones stealing from the backs of the average American laborer then, not the rich conservatives. Why don't they just donate all of their money to the social groups and the poor then??? Make you wonder, huh? Again, where do your numbers come from?

Besides, I don't think I've ever seen where liberals were labeled as 'unproductive underachievers', which is what you are implying. Liberals love money every bit as much as conservatives do, they just lie about it to relieve some false sense of guilt they must carry around for being rich.

My numbers come from you CON$, and I gave the links already. You CON$ love to brag and in the process of boasting about how generous you are you inadvertently revealed your greater generosity is not because you CON$ earn more than Libs but that you are more generous on less income.

And as you say, it is hardly likely that the Libs are excoriating themselves as "Limousine Liberals" so that is just another CON$ervative fabrication swallowed by the gullible.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers
March 27, 2008
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will

Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

 

[Cold Fusion38]

If there are any CEOs on here right now I will move ANYWHERE in the world within three days. I will work in a corporate level position for $250K plus 1% bonus based on profitability. I don't need a CAR allowence......I don't need a HOUSING allowance......I will fly commercial BUSINESS CLASS. I will not ask for ANY payout if I am fired within the first five years.

 

[Newby]

I love how you disregarded everything else I said. Nice dodge. (For Ed).

 

[edthecynic]

I think you are a little confused, perhaps you should read everything over again?

Well, I'll take your word that you are not sharp enough to get it.

If as you claim the people at the bottom are Libs on welfare then there must be an offsetting number of Libs at the top for Libs to average 6% more income than CON$. So if the top and bottom are Libs the CON$ must be stuck in the middle only pretending to be the productive achievers at the top.

Not to mention that your theory is a terrible generalization and a bad assumption. I said that the welfare recipients didn't vote republican, that doesn't mean that they're liberals. All that means, is that they've been fooled to think that their handouts are coming from the Dems. The problem is that those handouts are crumbs and that they are kept in their place for just that very reason. They're an easily manipulated voting block for the libs.

Of course it does to CON$. To CON$ Libs vote Democratic.

March 5, 2008
RUSH: All right, folks, time to fire point-blank, dead between the eyes. I am getting a number of e-mail complaints from people who are identifying themselves, anyway, as conservatives who are saying that they have lost faith in me, that this is not what conservatism is all about, this is not the way conservatives should operate. Let me tackle it this way. I think, if I may be serious for a moment, we're in a war, a political war in this country, and only one side is fully engaged and that's the enemy, and our enemy happens to be liberalism which is found in the Democrat Party.

 

[Vast LWC]

Federal funding equals welfare given out to individuals? Define federal funding.

Depends entirely on how you define "welfare".

It was my understanding that most "welfare" was turned into "workfare" during the Clinton era. Is this not so?

And it that is the case, how would this be different from paying people to do federally funded jobs created by said federal funding?

 

[Newby]

That's is? That's all you have?

Did you miss the 'All that means...' that followed? Why don't you address that part?

 

[Newby]

Federal funding equals welfare given out to individuals? Define federal funding.

Depends entirely on how you define "welfare".

It was my understanding that most "welfare" was turned into "workfare" during the Clinton era. Is this not so?

And it that is the case, how would this be different from paying people to do federally funded jobs created by said federal funding?

Welfare is paid at a state level, not a federal level. States receive federal funding for many and various reasons, it's how the fed control the states and try to keep them in line with what they want them to do. Again, you have to define what federal funding is and how it is being used by the states before you even begin to try to divide it up into 'red' and 'blue', which makes no sense to begin with. Just b/c a state goes 'blue', it does not mean that the majority of the population is democrat or republican, it's only an indication of those feelings at a particular point in time by a group of voters.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

The question is do you think social programs make our society more safe and more fair for all.



So let's say we stop ALL SOCIAL PROGRAMS tomorow. So we will have people who can't aford housing/food/medical treatment. What do you think some of those people will do to feed their children.......I'll tell you what they will steal or KILL for what they need to feed their families.

 

[edthecynic]

Not to mention that your theory is a terrible generalization and a bad assumption. I said that the welfare recipients didn't vote republican, that doesn't mean that they're liberals. All that means, is that they've been fooled to think that their handouts are coming from the Dems. The problem is that those handouts are crumbs and that they are kept in their place for just that very reason. They're an easily manipulated voting block for the libs.

That's is? That's all you have?

Did you miss the 'All that means...' that followed? Why don't you address that part?

So you are saying that the people on welfare are CON$ who have been fooled into thinking their handouts come from Dems. Thank you for admitting CON$ are so easily fooled.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Oh and by the way if any of you listen to everything Rush says without question then you are an absolute tool. Rush is a freakin hypocrite. He's a DRUG ADDICT!!!

 

[Bern80]

See Bern, Newby proves my point!!! CON$ claim people on welfare are Libs so there must be a sufficient number of wealthy Libs to offset them in order for Libs to average 6% more income than the envious CON$ stuck in their own mediocrity and insanely jealous of everyone above and below them.
It's sooooo obvious even Newby gets it.

Oh for fucks sake. Time to go back to school, Math first.

Here are 8 people's incomes, all these people are conservatives.

575,000
950,000
750,000
500,000
800,000
1,000,000
850,000
1,200,000

Here are 5 people's incomes. They're all liberals

600,000
900,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
800,000

Question 1: Which group has the higher avg?

Question 2: Which group has more people?

I'm not sure why I even bothered with that because, the point is rendered mute when hardly anyone is claiming all or most of the people on welfare are liberals. Frankly I don't know.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

You "ditto heads" are taking your marching orders from a MULTI MILLIONAIRE DRUG ADDICT!

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Bern do you have a life size cut out of Ronnie in your bedroom? So you have NO ISSUE at all with Reagan TRIPLING our national debt?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Now Bern if you said we need a GOLDWATER in the WH I could agree with that. Reagan was NOT a conservative. He was WAY more conservative than GWB but he was NOT a conservative.

 

[Vast LWC]

it's only an indication of those feelings at a particular point in time by a group of voters.

As is party affiliation, which would make this whole discussion moot.

 

[Vast LWC]

He was WAY more conservative than GWB but he was NOT a conservative.

Fiscally anyway. Socially I'd say GWB was a lot more conservative.