Top 8% Own 85%

[Toddsterpatriot]

Great. What rate did he pay? What rate should he have paid? Why?

12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.

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.

And I said it doesn't matter because nobody is paying that rate. You told me to prove it. It has been proven several times.

So Obama whined about the top rate not being high enough, finally got it raised, but nobody pays it.
Like I said, he's a moron.

You told me to prove it.

What did I tell you to prove?

 

[Brain357]

12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.

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.

And I said it doesn't matter because nobody is paying that rate. You told me to prove it. It has been proven several times.

So Obama whined about the top rate not being high enough, finally got it raised, but nobody pays it.
Like I said, he's a moron.

You told me to prove it.

What did I tell you to prove?

Are you really this dumb? I bore with constantly proving you wrong and your moronic questions. If you don't remember go back and look.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Great. What rate did he pay? What rate should he have paid? Why?

12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.

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.

So the rich pay a low rate. It's why ceo's often get paid in stocks, lower taxes.

So the rich pay a low rate.

Everyone who has capital gains pays a low rate.

It's why ceo's often get paid in stocks, lower taxes.

Yeah, Bill Clinton fucked that one up, didn't he?
But actually, payment of a stock grant is actually taxed as regular income.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

And I said it doesn't matter because nobody is paying that rate. You told me to prove it. It has been proven several times.

So Obama whined about the top rate not being high enough, finally got it raised, but nobody pays it.
Like I said, he's a moron.

You told me to prove it.

What did I tell you to prove?

Are you really this dumb? I bore with constantly proving you wrong and your moronic questions. If you don't remember go back and look.

I went back and looked, didn't see me asking you to prove anything.
I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong once. Constantly? Nigga please.

 

[Brain357]

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.

And I said it doesn't matter because nobody is paying that rate. You told me to prove it. It has been proven several times.

So Obama whined about the top rate not being high enough, finally got it raised, but nobody pays it.
Like I said, he's a moron.

You told me to prove it.

What did I tell you to prove?

Are you really this dumb? I bore with constantly proving you wrong and your moronic questions. If you don't remember go back and look.

I went back and looked, didn't see me asking you to prove anything.
I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong once. Constantly? Nigga please.

Sure kid. I'll take you seriously when you are right about anything.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

And I said it doesn't matter because nobody is paying that rate. You told me to prove it. It has been proven several times.

So Obama whined about the top rate not being high enough, finally got it raised, but nobody pays it.
Like I said, he's a moron.

You told me to prove it.

What did I tell you to prove?

Are you really this dumb? I bore with constantly proving you wrong and your moronic questions. If you don't remember go back and look.

I went back and looked, didn't see me asking you to prove anything.
I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong once. Constantly? Nigga please.

Sure kid. I'll take you seriously when you are right about anything.

Okay dad, time for your sleepy pill.
Your nurse will be right up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Most studies suggest that about one-fifth of the increase in economic inequality in America among men in recent decades is the result of the decline in unions. It may be more: A study in the American Sociological Review, using the broadest methodology, estimates that the decline of unions may account for one-third of the rise of inequality among men.

Take construction workers. A full-time construction worker earns about $10,000 less per year now than in 1973, in today’s dollars, according to Rosenfeld. One reason is probably that the proportion who are unionized has fallen in that period from more than 40 percent to just 14 percent.

Many Americans think unions drag down the economy over all, but scholars disagree. American auto unions are often mentioned, but Germany’s car workers have a strong union, and so do Toyota’s in Japan and Kia’s in South Korea.

In Germany, the average autoworker earns about $67 per hour in salary and benefits, compared with $34 in the United States. Yet Germany’s car companies in 2010 produced more than twice as many vehicles as American companies did, and they were highly profitable. It’s too glib to say that the problem in the American sector was just unions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-cost-of-a-decline-in-unions.html?_r=0

If we are going to do as Trump says and become great again, we need strong unions AGAIN.

Take construction workers. A full-time construction worker earns about $10,000 less per year now than in 1973, in today’s dollars

Bring in enough illegals to work construction, wages for Americans will decline.


Many Americans think unions drag down the economy over all, but scholars disagree. American auto unions are often mentioned, but Germany’s car workers have a strong union, and so do Toyota’s in Japan and Kia’s in South Korea.

The difference between our thug unions and those other unions is pretty large.

When ol' "pretty boy" Reagan fired PATCO and started the demise of unions in America he knew exactly what he was doing:

L.A. labor leaders seek minimum wage exemption for firms with union workers

L.A. labor leaders seek minimum wage exemption for firms with union workers

LOL!

 

[oreo]

The top 5% of this country already pay 8

I really don't understand what you are pointing out other than the fact rich people are rich.

Well then you need to open your mind and read the article.

The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us.

The top 5% of this country already pay 85% of the tax base of it.

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

The top 20% of earners in this country already pay 84% of the tax base of this country. The top 1% pay 50% of the Federal tax base of this country, and then the lower 80% pay 15% of the tax base. what's your point Do you want more money from these block of earners? Low earners pay 2% of the Federal tax base.
Top 20% of Earners Pay 84% of Income Tax
Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

I assume this is another socialism thread--for Bernie Sanders? Let's go through this one more time.

SOCIALISM 101
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill

 

[tyroneweaver]

If the dems don't like the ri

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

If the dems don't like the rich getting richer why don't they just stop printing more money.

 

[Campbell]

If

I really don't understand what you are pointing out other than the fact rich people are rich.

Well then you need to open your mind and read the article.

The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us.

and you don't think that if you had your left wing regressive system that the same thing wouldn't happen....do you think the castros are poor? How about Putin or the chinese leadership.........

you guys are delusional...if you want wealth to move...keep taxes and government regulation low....those are the things the rich exploit to keep others from becoming rich......crony socialism is what creates the problem......government politicians using their power to help their buddies.....the only way to stop that...give them less power to do that.....

WTF...

I guess suggesting we terminate the cozy relation between big government and big business causes some righties to get all pissy.

Find one post in the thousands I have posted on this forum, where I have ever suggested the need for more government.

The only way to break that connection....low tax rates for everyone....and less power in the federal government...anything else just gives them more power....

Make a judgement based upon percentage the poorest half are already paying more than the rich. Add all the small local taxes and fees which are fixed and the least able are already paying a lion's share.

 

[Campbell]

Yo

12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.

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.

And I said it doesn't matter because nobody is paying that rate. You told me to prove it. It has been proven several times.

So Obama whined about the top rate not being high enough, finally got it raised, but nobody pays it.
Like I said, he's a moron.

You told me to prove it.

What did I tell you to prove?

You guys need to get over it!! Your number one plan didn't work:

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If

I really don't understand what you are pointing out other than the fact rich people are rich.

Well then you need to open your mind and read the article.

The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us.

and you don't think that if you had your left wing regressive system that the same thing wouldn't happen....do you think the castros are poor? How about Putin or the chinese leadership.........

you guys are delusional...if you want wealth to move...keep taxes and government regulation low....those are the things the rich exploit to keep others from becoming rich......crony socialism is what creates the problem......government politicians using their power to help their buddies.....the only way to stop that...give them less power to do that.....

WTF...

I guess suggesting we terminate the cozy relation between big government and big business causes some righties to get all pissy.

Find one post in the thousands I have posted on this forum, where I have ever suggested the need for more government.

The only way to break that connection....low tax rates for everyone....and less power in the federal government...anything else just gives them more power....

Make a judgement based upon percentage the poorest half are already paying more than the rich. Add all the small local taxes and fees which are fixed and the least able are already paying a lion's share.

Utter bull. They pay no INCOME TAX. Income tax is where much of your social goodies come from. Income tax is where our defense comes from. Income tax is what pays for your big government!

Look at your paycheck. What do you see? You see deductions for Social Security which you get back and then some. You see deductions for Medicare which you will get back and then some once you retire. You see your FICA deduction which is nothing more than a fancy word for Social Security which again, you will get back and more. So what's left? State tax.....city tax.... and maybe other taxes depending on where you live. But it's not all that much.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Great. What rate did he pay? What rate should he have paid? Why?

12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.

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.

So the rich pay a low rate. It's why ceo's often get paid in stocks, lower taxes.

No, they get paid in stocks because it's cheaper than paying cash. If the CEO does well, his stocks will go up. The better he does for the company, the better he makes out. Stocks are merely offered as an incentive.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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"?

Yes you should, because Bernie is going to give your kid free college!!! So go out and spend your money.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Barack Obama says taxes are lower today than under Reagan, Eisenhower

Yes, DumBama did say that. But remember, Obama is also a pathological liar too.

If you need the Fact Check article explaining how DumBama lied about that statistic, just ask, I have it right here in my folder.

 

[Brain357]

12.5%, I assume that is the rate he was supposed to pay.

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.

So the rich pay a low rate. It's why ceo's often get paid in stocks, lower taxes.

No, they get paid in stocks because it's cheaper than paying cash. If the CEO does well, his stocks will go up. The better he does for the company, the better he makes out. Stocks are merely offered as an incentive.

Yes that is what they want you to believe.

 

[Brain357]

Barack Obama says taxes are lower today than under Reagan, Eisenhower

Yes, DumBama did say that. But remember, Obama is also a pathological liar too.

If you need the Fact Check article explaining how DumBama lied about that statistic, just ask, I have it right here in my folder.

The link rates it mostly true.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

If they are hiring here and providing good wages and benefits then we collect more income tax and pay out less welfare. And nobody is paying 40%.

Well if we are going to pay less welfare, then forget about it. The Democrats would never go for that. They want more government dependents--not less of them.

1. ExxonMobil
Good thing Exxon has a few bucks left over to build out this Energy Center at its new complex in The Woodlands, Texas.
Income tax expense: $31 billion
Net income: $45 billion
Effective tax rate: 39%


2. Chevron
The oil giant pay among the highest tax rates because of overseas royalties that float with the price of oil.
Income tax expense: $20 billion
Net income: $26 billion
Effective tax rate: 43%


3. Apple

Income tax expense: $14.2 billion
Net income: $41.7 billion
Effective tax rate: 25%


Introduction - In Photos: The 25 U.S. Corporations That Pay The Highest Taxes

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Barack Obama says taxes are lower today than under Reagan, Eisenhower

Yes, DumBama did say that. But remember, Obama is also a pathological liar too.

If you need the Fact Check article explaining how DumBama lied about that statistic, just ask, I have it right here in my folder.

The link rates it mostly true.

And factcheck rates it false. FactCheck does lean left at times, but Politiafact leans left nearly all the time.

 

[Wilbur Right]

President Reagan radically cut the highest marginal income tax rate from 70 percent when he came in office in 1980 to only 28 percent when he left office in 1988. But rather than the wealthiest Americans paying fewer taxes, the richest 10 percent of Americans went from paying $177 billion in federal income taxes in 1980 to $237 billion in 1988.

Progressives cheered President Obama when he raised the top marginal tax rate to39.6 percent in 2013, the highest rate since 1986. But the average tax rate paid by the Fortunate 400 fell to a record low of 17 percent, down from 19.04 percent from his first year in office.

The main reason that the wealthiest are paying a lower percentages of taxes on income than Reagan is that Obama’s current federal tax code at 74,608-pages is about three times larger than the 26,300-pages under Reagan.

Shrouded in legalese, post-Reagan Democrats and Republicans have conveniently legislated an awesome array of tax deferral strategies: Wall Street trusts that convert twice as much income into lower taxed capital gains, sophisticated derivative borrowing schemes, and multi-generational asset transfers options that allow the Fortunate 400 to be much more fortunate.




Interesting.