Top 8% Own 85%

[Wry Catcher]

So depending on how you look at it, the tax burden is real low or the lowest in a half century. Any way you look at it, it is historically very low.

Any way you look at it, DumBama lied as usual, and any way you look at it, those evil rich people just about support the entire federal government.

And they pay a historically very low tax rate. Obviously the people with all the money will pay the most in taxes.

Well, if every American paid a flat tax of 10%, the rich would still be paying the most in taxes. The difference is that everybody would be in the game.

Why would you do that? Then you would have more people on welfare expanding the size of government.

If Republicans could gain that much power, we would be cutting many off of welfare too. If you're physically and mentally capable of supporting yourself, you don't get welfare.

Ten percent of $30,000 is $3,000. I doubt if two or three grand would put many on welfare even the way it is now.

Welfare is a pejorative used by ignorant people. TANF replaced AFDC under President Clinton, learn before you project your ignorance even further.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A Taxing Burden

Obama also argued that the "wealthy" could afford to pay more in taxes since their "tax burden" is the lowest it has been in 50 years. But it depends what measure one uses. The CBO’s most recent analysis showed that the average federal tax rate for high-income taxpayers was its lowest in 1986 during the Reagan administration.

The administration isn’t alone in estimating effective tax rates, though. The CBO, in a June 2010 report, provided statistics for average federal taxes paid by income group from 1979 to 2007. The CBO found that high-income taxpayers had the lowest tax burden in 1986. (The CBO analysis included the four largest sources of government revenue — individual income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate income taxes and excise taxes. It calculated the average tax rates by dividing taxes paid by "comprehensive household income," which includes all cash income plus additional sources of income such as Medicare benefits and food stamps.)

FactChecking Obama’s Budget Speech

So depending on how you look at it, the tax burden is real low or the lowest in a half century. Any way you look at it, it is historically very low.

Any way you look at it, DumBama lied as usual, and any way you look at it, those evil rich people just about support the entire federal government.

And they pay a historically very low tax rate. Obviously the people with all the money will pay the most in taxes.

Well, if every American paid a flat tax of 10%, the rich would still be paying the most in taxes. The difference is that everybody would be in the game.

Sorry shithead, or more accurately shit for brains, not everyone would be in the game. Have you not understood the consequences of Citizen's United and McCutcheon? Or are you one of the fools who believes both 5-4 decisions were all about free speech (I know the answer, consider this question to be rhetorical)?

Well I've about had it with your childish liberal insults. Respond if you like but I won't see it since you are the very first person I'm putting on ignore. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Good bye and I hope you grow up sometime.

Mod edit: Leave family members out of the discussion, please. Thanks

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

And he gets taxed on the value of the stocks when he's given them and pays capital gains on the increase in value when he cashes out

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Any way you look at it, DumBama lied as usual, and any way you look at it, those evil rich people just about support the entire federal government.

And they pay a historically very low tax rate. Obviously the people with all the money will pay the most in taxes.

Well, if every American paid a flat tax of 10%, the rich would still be paying the most in taxes. The difference is that everybody would be in the game.

Why would you do that? Then you would have more people on welfare expanding the size of government.

If Republicans could gain that much power, we would be cutting many off of welfare too. If you're physically and mentally capable of supporting yourself, you don't get welfare.

Ten percent of $30,000 is $3,000. I doubt if two or three grand would put many on welfare even the way it is now.

Sounds like a good plan to further lower spending and really tank the economy.

Taxing the poor would increase the need for welfare.

Well that's what we do over here. In our county (Cuyahoga) we have an 8% sales tax. If you're rich, poor, or anything in between, you have to pay that tax every time you purchase something.

The problem with our taxing system is that people are allowed to vote money out of other peoples pockets. Something is truly wrong with a system like that. It's not a wonder why more Americans don't take spending seriously.

If we all had a dog in the race, perhaps people wouldn't be wanting so much from the federal government. Okay, so maybe not 10%, but what about five or three percent?

If we are all going to rely on things from the government (which I'm against) then wouldn't it be fair if we all paid for it? Why is only half of the country paying the way for the other half?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Big Oil Companies Pay Just A 11.7 Percent Tax Rate, Report Finds

The report, published by Taxpayers for Common Sense, found the U.S.’s 20 largest oil and gas companies paid 11.7 percent in taxes from 2009 to 2013. That’s significantly less than the statutory corporate tax rate of 35 percent, which is typically what corporations pay if they make more than $18.3 million in a year. And the smaller oil firms — those smaller than major firms like ExxonMobil or Chevron — paid even less tax — 3.7 percent, according to the report.

So is that a percentage of their gross revenue or revenue after expenses.

My bet is the former which just another way to fuck with the statistics

In general big oil companies operate on single digit profit margins it's the volume of sales that makes them money

Oil Company Earnings: Reality Over Rhetoric

Industry profit margins are cyclical too. But on average, between 2006 and 2010, the largest oil companies averaged a profit margin of around 6.5%. This pales in comparison to profit margins in just about every other industry. The pharmaceutical industry, for example, routinely averages a profit margin of about 16%. The soft drink market is even more lucrative.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This analysis links to the call for 4 percent growth. Considering conventional estimates of the long-term trend growth of the economy, a 4 percent growth rate through the next U.S. president’s first term would go a long way toward closing the gap in output that opened with the collapse of household spending in the Great Recession and has yet to be filled.

How can we move toward this goal? Our research strongly implies that the main problem is on the demand side, not the supply side. The U.S. needs to find a way to boost demand growth by arresting, and hopefully reversing, the dramatic rise of inequality.

The basic argument is exceedingly simple: The economy continues to be held back by insufficient household spending, and if the income share of Americans outside of the top sliver rises, household spending will increase. Policies that raise the minimum wage and reduce the tax burden of low- and middle income-households would help.

In our view, however, the best method to achieve this objective would be to restore wage growth across the income distribution as occurred in the decades after World War II.

http://www.newsweek.com/rising-inequality-holding-back-us-economy-354777

Funny how after every other recession we did get a 4% growth rate why is the Obama's recovery only averaging a little better than an anemic 2% I wonder

 

[Skull Pilot]

A Taxing Burden

Obama also argued that the "wealthy" could afford to pay more in taxes since their "tax burden" is the lowest it has been in 50 years. But it depends what measure one uses. The CBO’s most recent analysis showed that the average federal tax rate for high-income taxpayers was its lowest in 1986 during the Reagan administration.

The administration isn’t alone in estimating effective tax rates, though. The CBO, in a June 2010 report, provided statistics for average federal taxes paid by income group from 1979 to 2007. The CBO found that high-income taxpayers had the lowest tax burden in 1986. (The CBO analysis included the four largest sources of government revenue — individual income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate income taxes and excise taxes. It calculated the average tax rates by dividing taxes paid by "comprehensive household income," which includes all cash income plus additional sources of income such as Medicare benefits and food stamps.)

FactChecking Obama’s Budget Speech

So depending on how you look at it, the tax burden is real low or the lowest in a half century. Any way you look at it, it is historically very low.

Any way you look at it, DumBama lied as usual, and any way you look at it, those evil rich people just about support the entire federal government.

And they pay a historically very low tax rate. Obviously the people with all the money will pay the most in taxes.

Well, if every American paid a flat tax of 10%, the rich would still be paying the most in taxes. The difference is that everybody would be in the game.

Why would you do that? Then you would have more people on welfare expanding the size of government.

Prove that

 

[Brain357]

And they pay a historically very low tax rate. Obviously the people with all the money will pay the most in taxes.

Well, if every American paid a flat tax of 10%, the rich would still be paying the most in taxes. The difference is that everybody would be in the game.

Why would you do that? Then you would have more people on welfare expanding the size of government.

If Republicans could gain that much power, we would be cutting many off of welfare too. If you're physically and mentally capable of supporting yourself, you don't get welfare.

Ten percent of $30,000 is $3,000. I doubt if two or three grand would put many on welfare even the way it is now.

Sounds like a good plan to further lower spending and really tank the economy.

Taxing the poor would increase the need for welfare.

Well that's what we do over here. In our county (Cuyahoga) we have an 8% sales tax. If you're rich, poor, or anything in between, you have to pay that tax every time you purchase something.

The problem with our taxing system is that people are allowed to vote money out of other peoples pockets. Something is truly wrong with a system like that. It's not a wonder why more Americans don't take spending seriously.

If we all had a dog in the race, perhaps people wouldn't be wanting so much from the federal government. Okay, so maybe not 10%, but what about five or three percent?

If we are all going to rely on things from the government (which I'm against) then wouldn't it be fair if we all paid for it? Why is only half of the country paying the way for the other half?

If the rich would do more job creating, rather than hoarding all the wealth more people would be paying. Since they don't, they obviously want to pay all the taxes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Any way you look at it, DumBama lied as usual, and any way you look at it, those evil rich people just about support the entire federal government.

And they pay a historically very low tax rate. Obviously the people with all the money will pay the most in taxes.

Well, if every American paid a flat tax of 10%, the rich would still be paying the most in taxes. The difference is that everybody would be in the game.

Why would you do that? Then you would have more people on welfare expanding the size of government.

If Republicans could gain that much power, we would be cutting many off of welfare too. If you're physically and mentally capable of supporting yourself, you don't get welfare.

Ten percent of $30,000 is $3,000. I doubt if two or three grand would put many on welfare even the way it is now.

Sounds like a good plan to further lower spending and really tank the economy.

Taxing the poor would increase the need for welfare.

No it wouldn't

10 cents on the dollar is not enough to put anyone on welfare

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well, if every American paid a flat tax of 10%, the rich would still be paying the most in taxes. The difference is that everybody would be in the game.

Why would you do that? Then you would have more people on welfare expanding the size of government.

If Republicans could gain that much power, we would be cutting many off of welfare too. If you're physically and mentally capable of supporting yourself, you don't get welfare.

Ten percent of $30,000 is $3,000. I doubt if two or three grand would put many on welfare even the way it is now.

Sounds like a good plan to further lower spending and really tank the economy.

Taxing the poor would increase the need for welfare.

Well that's what we do over here. In our county (Cuyahoga) we have an 8% sales tax. If you're rich, poor, or anything in between, you have to pay that tax every time you purchase something.

The problem with our taxing system is that people are allowed to vote money out of other peoples pockets. Something is truly wrong with a system like that. It's not a wonder why more Americans don't take spending seriously.

If we all had a dog in the race, perhaps people wouldn't be wanting so much from the federal government. Okay, so maybe not 10%, but what about five or three percent?

If we are all going to rely on things from the government (which I'm against) then wouldn't it be fair if we all paid for it? Why is only half of the country paying the way for the other half?

If the rich would do more job creating, rather than hoarding all the wealth more people would be paying. Since they don't, they obviously want to pay all the taxes.

So the rich put all their money under a mattress?

Of course not they save and invest it which puts all that money back into the economy

 

[Brain357]

This analysis links to the call for 4 percent growth. Considering conventional estimates of the long-term trend growth of the economy, a 4 percent growth rate through the next U.S. president’s first term would go a long way toward closing the gap in output that opened with the collapse of household spending in the Great Recession and has yet to be filled.

How can we move toward this goal? Our research strongly implies that the main problem is on the demand side, not the supply side. The U.S. needs to find a way to boost demand growth by arresting, and hopefully reversing, the dramatic rise of inequality.

The basic argument is exceedingly simple: The economy continues to be held back by insufficient household spending, and if the income share of Americans outside of the top sliver rises, household spending will increase. Policies that raise the minimum wage and reduce the tax burden of low- and middle income-households would help.

In our view, however, the best method to achieve this objective would be to restore wage growth across the income distribution as occurred in the decades after World War II.

http://www.newsweek.com/rising-inequality-holding-back-us-economy-354777

Funny how after every other recession we did get a 4% growth rate why is the Obama's recovery only averaging a little better than an anemic 2% I wonder

Out of control inequality.

 

[Brain357]

So depending on how you look at it, the tax burden is real low or the lowest in a half century. Any way you look at it, it is historically very low.

Any way you look at it, DumBama lied as usual, and any way you look at it, those evil rich people just about support the entire federal government.

And they pay a historically very low tax rate. Obviously the people with all the money will pay the most in taxes.

Well, if every American paid a flat tax of 10%, the rich would still be paying the most in taxes. The difference is that everybody would be in the game.

Why would you do that? Then you would have more people on welfare expanding the size of government.

Prove that

Why would I have to? If you tax the poor they now have less money and a higher need for welfare. Pretty simple.

 

[Campbell]

If

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.

Actually my wife and I worked a combined 84 years for companies under one government contract at Oak Ridge, TN. We both draw nice pension checks plus we each draw about $1,600 social security...combined about $6,000 each month.

 

[Brain357]

Why would you do that? Then you would have more people on welfare expanding the size of government.

If Republicans could gain that much power, we would be cutting many off of welfare too. If you're physically and mentally capable of supporting yourself, you don't get welfare.

Ten percent of $30,000 is $3,000. I doubt if two or three grand would put many on welfare even the way it is now.

Sounds like a good plan to further lower spending and really tank the economy.

Taxing the poor would increase the need for welfare.

Well that's what we do over here. In our county (Cuyahoga) we have an 8% sales tax. If you're rich, poor, or anything in between, you have to pay that tax every time you purchase something.

The problem with our taxing system is that people are allowed to vote money out of other peoples pockets. Something is truly wrong with a system like that. It's not a wonder why more Americans don't take spending seriously.

If we all had a dog in the race, perhaps people wouldn't be wanting so much from the federal government. Okay, so maybe not 10%, but what about five or three percent?

If we are all going to rely on things from the government (which I'm against) then wouldn't it be fair if we all paid for it? Why is only half of the country paying the way for the other half?

If the rich would do more job creating, rather than hoarding all the wealth more people would be paying. Since they don't, they obviously want to pay all the taxes.

So the rich put all their money under a mattress?

Of course not they save and invest it which puts all that money back into the economy

Most people still don't have enough to spend. Businesses need customers with money to spend.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This analysis links to the call for 4 percent growth. Considering conventional estimates of the long-term trend growth of the economy, a 4 percent growth rate through the next U.S. president’s first term would go a long way toward closing the gap in output that opened with the collapse of household spending in the Great Recession and has yet to be filled.

How can we move toward this goal? Our research strongly implies that the main problem is on the demand side, not the supply side. The U.S. needs to find a way to boost demand growth by arresting, and hopefully reversing, the dramatic rise of inequality.

The basic argument is exceedingly simple: The economy continues to be held back by insufficient household spending, and if the income share of Americans outside of the top sliver rises, household spending will increase. Policies that raise the minimum wage and reduce the tax burden of low- and middle income-households would help.

In our view, however, the best method to achieve this objective would be to restore wage growth across the income distribution as occurred in the decades after World War II.

http://www.newsweek.com/rising-inequality-holding-back-us-economy-354777

Funny how after every other recession we did get a 4% growth rate why is the Obama's recovery only averaging a little better than an anemic 2% I wonder

Out of control inequality.

I think not

 

[Brain357]

And they pay a historically very low tax rate. Obviously the people with all the money will pay the most in taxes.

Well, if every American paid a flat tax of 10%, the rich would still be paying the most in taxes. The difference is that everybody would be in the game.

Why would you do that? Then you would have more people on welfare expanding the size of government.

If Republicans could gain that much power, we would be cutting many off of welfare too. If you're physically and mentally capable of supporting yourself, you don't get welfare.

Ten percent of $30,000 is $3,000. I doubt if two or three grand would put many on welfare even the way it is now.

Sounds like a good plan to further lower spending and really tank the economy.

Taxing the poor would increase the need for welfare.

No it wouldn't

10 cents on the dollar is not enough to put anyone on welfare

Sorry, but if you make very little 10% is huge.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If Republicans could gain that much power, we would be cutting many off of welfare too. If you're physically and mentally capable of supporting yourself, you don't get welfare.

Ten percent of $30,000 is $3,000. I doubt if two or three grand would put many on welfare even the way it is now.

Sounds like a good plan to further lower spending and really tank the economy.

Taxing the poor would increase the need for welfare.

Well that's what we do over here. In our county (Cuyahoga) we have an 8% sales tax. If you're rich, poor, or anything in between, you have to pay that tax every time you purchase something.

The problem with our taxing system is that people are allowed to vote money out of other peoples pockets. Something is truly wrong with a system like that. It's not a wonder why more Americans don't take spending seriously.

If we all had a dog in the race, perhaps people wouldn't be wanting so much from the federal government. Okay, so maybe not 10%, but what about five or three percent?

If we are all going to rely on things from the government (which I'm against) then wouldn't it be fair if we all paid for it? Why is only half of the country paying the way for the other half?

If the rich would do more job creating, rather than hoarding all the wealth more people would be paying. Since they don't, they obviously want to pay all the taxes.

So the rich put all their money under a mattress?

Of course not they save and invest it which puts all that money back into the economy

Most people still don't have enough to spend. Businesses need customers with money to spend.

Spend on what? Anyone who is paying 10% won't see any change and anyone paying more than a 10% net tax will have more money

 

[Brain357]

This analysis links to the call for 4 percent growth. Considering conventional estimates of the long-term trend growth of the economy, a 4 percent growth rate through the next U.S. president’s first term would go a long way toward closing the gap in output that opened with the collapse of household spending in the Great Recession and has yet to be filled.

How can we move toward this goal? Our research strongly implies that the main problem is on the demand side, not the supply side. The U.S. needs to find a way to boost demand growth by arresting, and hopefully reversing, the dramatic rise of inequality.

The basic argument is exceedingly simple: The economy continues to be held back by insufficient household spending, and if the income share of Americans outside of the top sliver rises, household spending will increase. Policies that raise the minimum wage and reduce the tax burden of low- and middle income-households would help.

In our view, however, the best method to achieve this objective would be to restore wage growth across the income distribution as occurred in the decades after World War II.

http://www.newsweek.com/rising-inequality-holding-back-us-economy-354777

Funny how after every other recession we did get a 4% growth rate why is the Obama's recovery only averaging a little better than an anemic 2% I wonder

Out of control inequality.

I think not

You don't seem to think much at all.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well, if every American paid a flat tax of 10%, the rich would still be paying the most in taxes. The difference is that everybody would be in the game.

Why would you do that? Then you would have more people on welfare expanding the size of government.

If Republicans could gain that much power, we would be cutting many off of welfare too. If you're physically and mentally capable of supporting yourself, you don't get welfare.

Ten percent of $30,000 is $3,000. I doubt if two or three grand would put many on welfare even the way it is now.

Sounds like a good plan to further lower spending and really tank the economy.

Taxing the poor would increase the need for welfare.

No it wouldn't

10 cents on the dollar is not enough to put anyone on welfare

Sorry, but if you make very little 10% is huge.

No it's not. In fact 10% is already the lowest tax bracket so it's already being taken out of most people's pay checks and they are doing OK all that will happen is they won't get a refund check every April

 

[Brain357]

Sounds like a good plan to further lower spending and really tank the economy.

Taxing the poor would increase the need for welfare.

Well that's what we do over here. In our county (Cuyahoga) we have an 8% sales tax. If you're rich, poor, or anything in between, you have to pay that tax every time you purchase something.

The problem with our taxing system is that people are allowed to vote money out of other peoples pockets. Something is truly wrong with a system like that. It's not a wonder why more Americans don't take spending seriously.

If we all had a dog in the race, perhaps people wouldn't be wanting so much from the federal government. Okay, so maybe not 10%, but what about five or three percent?

If we are all going to rely on things from the government (which I'm against) then wouldn't it be fair if we all paid for it? Why is only half of the country paying the way for the other half?

If the rich would do more job creating, rather than hoarding all the wealth more people would be paying. Since they don't, they obviously want to pay all the taxes.

So the rich put all their money under a mattress?

Of course not they save and invest it which puts all that money back into the economy

Most people still don't have enough to spend. Businesses need customers with money to spend.

Spend on what? Anyone who is paying 10% won't see any change and anyone paying more than a 10% net tax will have more money

Yes a tax on the poor and a break for the rich. Gee, the rich are already doing really well and the economy is slow.