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.
And savings is bad for the economy?
Yes it is.
That idea is the surest sign of liberal economic idiocy.
The rich actually pay very low rates.
Higher than they did under Reagan. About 40% higher.
Buffett says he's still paying lower tax rate than his secretary
He's a liberal liar. So what?
Link proof that they are actually paying more now.
U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)
The above link shows that in 2013, the top bracket was 39.6% but in 1988, it was 28%
(39.6) / (28) = 1.414, like I said, about 40% higher.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares? Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Correct, many are not paying that rate, but on the other hand, others are.
This is what's so screwed up with our tax system. Those who are paying the higher rates do leave the country. Those who pay the lower end stay.
So it would make sense to have a more equitable tax structure where most all businesses pay the lower scale of our corporate tax rate. Because when you talk about effective tax rate, it makes it look like all businesses are paying low taxes.
I don't disagree. I would let companies pay no taxes if they hire here, pay well, and give good benefits.
12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.I already did that. We all know what Romney paid and I linked to Buffet. Sorry you lose.
I already did that.
Did what?
We all know what Romney paid
Why do you feel he paid too little? Be as specific as you can.
and I linked to Buffet.
I didn't see mention of what the secretary earned, the rate the secretary paid, what Buffett earned or the rate he paid. So all you had was a whiney, lying liberal making a claim.
I assume he paid the correct amount. But the rate he actually paid was far less than your claims.
Great. What rate did he pay? What rate should he have paid? Why?
Nope, that was the rate he did pay the previous year. When running for the nomination, he was under pressure to release his tax records so that people did know what he paid.
I also took note that you never answered my question, so here it is again:
Since the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay nearly 70% of all collected income tax isn't enough, what percentage is? 80%? 90%? 100%?
Link proof that they are actually paying more now.
U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)
The above link shows that in 2013, the top bracket was 39.6% but in 1988, it was 28%
(39.6) / (28) = 1.414, like I said, about 40% higher.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares? Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Correct, many are not paying that rate, but on the other hand, others are.
This is what's so screwed up with our tax system. Those who are paying the higher rates do leave the country. Those who pay the lower end stay.
So it would make sense to have a more equitable tax structure where most all businesses pay the lower scale of our corporate tax rate. Because when you talk about effective tax rate, it makes it look like all businesses are paying low taxes.
I don't disagree. I would let companies pay no taxes if they hire here, pay well, and give good benefits.
So what you are saying is that the federal government should subsidize businesses in exchange for good paying jobs and benefits? Isn't that like the taxpayers paying for those employees instead of the business?
ummm.....its what the Gipper wanted.This is really screwed up...and we Americans fight among ourselves over stupid things. All the while the elites are screwing us. When will we wake up and take action?
The Panama Papers offer damning proof of this: increasing concentrations of wealth and power that are free of any constraint (such as taxes) is not just the consequence of centralized money and state power--this inequality is the only possible output of centralized money and state power.
Here is a graphic portrayal of just how concentrated global wealth really is: the top .7% (less than 1%) own 45% of all global wealth, and the top 8% own 85%.
Of Two Minds - The Panama Papers: This Is the Consequence of Centralized Money and Power
12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.I already did that.
Did what?
We all know what Romney paid
Why do you feel he paid too little? Be as specific as you can.
and I linked to Buffet.
I didn't see mention of what the secretary earned, the rate the secretary paid, what Buffett earned or the rate he paid. So all you had was a whiney, lying liberal making a claim.
I assume he paid the correct amount. But the rate he actually paid was far less than your claims.
Great. What rate did he pay? What rate should he have paid? Why?
Nope, that was the rate he did pay the previous year. When running for the nomination, he was under pressure to release his tax records so that people did know what he paid.
I also took note that you never answered my question, so here it is again:
Since the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay nearly 70% of all collected income tax isn't enough, what percentage is? 80%? 90%? 100%?
When did I say it isn't enough? I pointed out the rich actually pay a far lower rate than toddster claimed.
U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1862-2013 (Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Brackets)
The above link shows that in 2013, the top bracket was 39.6% but in 1988, it was 28%
(39.6) / (28) = 1.414, like I said, about 40% higher.
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares? Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Correct, many are not paying that rate, but on the other hand, others are.
This is what's so screwed up with our tax system. Those who are paying the higher rates do leave the country. Those who pay the lower end stay.
So it would make sense to have a more equitable tax structure where most all businesses pay the lower scale of our corporate tax rate. Because when you talk about effective tax rate, it makes it look like all businesses are paying low taxes.
I don't disagree. I would let companies pay no taxes if they hire here, pay well, and give good benefits.
So what you are saying is that the federal government should subsidize businesses in exchange for good paying jobs and benefits? Isn't that like the taxpayers paying for those employees instead of the business?
No it isn't.
12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.I assume he paid the correct amount. But the rate he actually paid was far less than your claims.
Great. What rate did he pay? What rate should he have paid? Why?
Nope, that was the rate he did pay the previous year. When running for the nomination, he was under pressure to release his tax records so that people did know what he paid.
I also took note that you never answered my question, so here it is again:
Since the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay nearly 70% of all collected income tax isn't enough, what percentage is? 80%? 90%? 100%?
When did I say it isn't enough? I pointed out the rich actually pay a far lower rate than toddster claimed.
They either pay a lower rate or higher. Which one is it?
Since they collectively pay over 70% of our taxes, and you think they should pay more, then how much more is all I'm asking?
Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares? Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Correct, many are not paying that rate, but on the other hand, others are.
This is what's so screwed up with our tax system. Those who are paying the higher rates do leave the country. Those who pay the lower end stay.
So it would make sense to have a more equitable tax structure where most all businesses pay the lower scale of our corporate tax rate. Because when you talk about effective tax rate, it makes it look like all businesses are paying low taxes.
I don't disagree. I would let companies pay no taxes if they hire here, pay well, and give good benefits.
So what you are saying is that the federal government should subsidize businesses in exchange for good paying jobs and benefits? Isn't that like the taxpayers paying for those employees instead of the business?
No it isn't.
Why not? What you are suggesting is that corporations should pay no tax (instead of the 40% now) if they provide good jobs and benefits. If they no longer make contributions to our tax collections, then somebody is going to have to make up that loss. That would be the other taxpayers.
12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.Those aren't what people actually pay so who cares?
Obama bitched and moaned to raise the top rate that people don't even pay?
He's dumber than I first thought.
Show that the rich are actually paying a lower rate.
Huh? I think that would be your job.
I already did that. We all know what Romney paid and I linked to Buffet. Sorry you lose.
I already did that.
Did what?
We all know what Romney paid
Why do you feel he paid too little? Be as specific as you can.
and I linked to Buffet.
I didn't see mention of what the secretary earned, the rate the secretary paid, what Buffett earned or the rate he paid. So all you had was a whiney, lying liberal making a claim.
I assume he paid the correct amount. But the rate he actually paid was far less than your claims.
Great. What rate did he pay? What rate should he have paid? Why?
And you produce more PRODUCT if people are spending and buying more PRODUCT.That's important because American spenders make up the majority -- about 70% -- of economic activity in the country.
If we don't stop punishing production, saving...spending, won't matter.
Remember GDP stands for Gross Domestic PRODUCT.
You're assuming the government isn't taxing and regulating you out of business before you can produce more.
You won't have a business without spending.
And I won't start a business without savings.
Many have started with borrowing. Look at trump.
12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.I already did that. We all know what Romney paid and I linked to Buffet. Sorry you lose.
I already did that.
Did what?
We all know what Romney paid
Why do you feel he paid too little? Be as specific as you can.
and I linked to Buffet.
I didn't see mention of what the secretary earned, the rate the secretary paid, what Buffett earned or the rate he paid. So all you had was a whiney, lying liberal making a claim.
I assume he paid the correct amount. But the rate he actually paid was far less than your claims.
Great. What rate did he pay? What rate should he have paid? Why?
So he had capital gains and made large charitable contributions.
Just awful!
12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.I already did that.
Did what?
We all know what Romney paid
Why do you feel he paid too little? Be as specific as you can.
and I linked to Buffet.
I didn't see mention of what the secretary earned, the rate the secretary paid, what Buffett earned or the rate he paid. So all you had was a whiney, lying liberal making a claim.
I assume he paid the correct amount. But the rate he actually paid was far less than your claims.
Great. What rate did he pay? What rate should he have paid? Why?
Nope, that was the rate he did pay the previous year. When running for the nomination, he was under pressure to release his tax records so that people did know what he paid.
I also took note that you never answered my question, so here it is again:
Since the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay nearly 70% of all collected income tax isn't enough, what percentage is? 80%? 90%? 100%?
When did I say it isn't enough? I pointed out the rich actually pay a far lower rate than toddster claimed.
And you produce more PRODUCT if people are spending and buying more PRODUCT.
You're assuming the government isn't taxing and regulating you out of business before you can produce more.
You won't have a business without spending.
And I won't start a business without savings.
Many have started with borrowing. Look at trump.
Borrowing? Tough to do that if no one has savings.
12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.I assume he paid the correct amount. But the rate he actually paid was far less than your claims.
Great. What rate did he pay? What rate should he have paid? Why?
Nope, that was the rate he did pay the previous year. When running for the nomination, he was under pressure to release his tax records so that people did know what he paid.
I also took note that you never answered my question, so here it is again:
Since the top 10% of wage earners in this country pay nearly 70% of all collected income tax isn't enough, what percentage is? 80%? 90%? 100%?
When did I say it isn't enough? I pointed out the rich actually pay a far lower rate than toddster claimed.
I didn't say anything about what anyone actually paid.
I just explained that the top rate is more than 40% higher than it was in 1988.
12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.I already did that.
Did what?
We all know what Romney paid
Why do you feel he paid too little? Be as specific as you can.
and I linked to Buffet.
I didn't see mention of what the secretary earned, the rate the secretary paid, what Buffett earned or the rate he paid. So all you had was a whiney, lying liberal making a claim.
I assume he paid the correct amount. But the rate he actually paid was far less than your claims.
Great. What rate did he pay? What rate should he have paid? Why?
So he had capital gains and made large charitable contributions.
Just awful!
He paid far less than the rates you were throwing around.
You're assuming the government isn't taxing and regulating you out of business before you can produce more.
You won't have a business without spending.
And I won't start a business without savings.
Many have started with borrowing. Look at trump.
Borrowing? Tough to do that if no one has savings.
Won't have a business without spending.
12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.I assume he paid the correct amount. But the rate he actually paid was far less than your claims.
Great. What rate did he pay? What rate should he have paid? Why?
So he had capital gains and made large charitable contributions.
Just awful!
He paid far less than the rates you were throwing around.
Of course he did, his money was from capital gains, not wages.
You won't have a business without spending.
And I won't start a business without savings.
Many have started with borrowing. Look at trump.
Borrowing? Tough to do that if no one has savings.
Won't have a business without spending.
Yup.
I'm saving for my kid's college.
Should I feel bad for "damaging the economy"?
