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.
why not have the 50% of people who pay nothing pay something?
Do you mean working people? If so 50% don't pay nothing. Everyone who works pays at least an effective 15% payroll tax (including the employer's match)
the post is about raising income taxes not payroll taxes and yes 50% pf people pay no income taxes. And an employer contribution to Social es in just that, the employers tax not the employee's tax.
Do you mean working people? If so 50% don't pay nothing. Everyone who works pays at least an effective 15% payroll tax (including the employer's match)
the post is about raising income taxes not payroll taxes and yes 50% pf people pay no income taxes. And an employer contribution to Social es in just that, the employers tax not the employee's tax.
You didn't say income taxes, you said 50% paid nothing. That is false. I clarified.
Many economists contend that the employers contribution would be more salary to the worker as it is a cost of labor. But even without it they pay about 7.5% directly.
If higher taxes on the rich is the answer to fix our economy... Why not raise the top tax rate back to 90%?
If higher taxes on the rich is the answer to fix our economy... Why not raise the top tax rate back to 90%?
Because it's probably not necessary.
Besides, with this current state of the economy, we need more money in circulation so raising taxes is probably counter-productive.
Understand I think even this modest raise of 4% increase on the > $250,000 incomes is not a good idea.
And that, despite the fact I've been complaining about the too-low rate of taxes on the superwealthy for years and years.
But right now raising taxes is not a good idea.
That was an estimated average figure, not an assertion that you or everyone pays that effective rate. Some pay more, some pay less. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
I thought you were talking about the people who would be subject to the 90% tax (if it were to be imposed). My bad if I misapprehended you.
As a point of reference though, the top 1% of income earners earn 18% of all income earned in the US. However, they pay 39% of all income taxes paid in the US.
Given that, how much is their "fair share?"
Are you including all the taxes we pay in school taxes, gas taxes, road taxes, sales taxes?
I bet we pay more TAXES than they do.
And I bet their income tax numbers are misleading. They probably get it all back thru loopholes you don't even know about unless you work for Lehman Brothers.
the post is about raising income taxes not payroll taxes and yes 50% pf people pay no income taxes. And an employer contribution to Social es in just that, the employers tax not the employee's tax.
You didn't say income taxes, you said 50% paid nothing. That is false. I clarified.
Many economists contend that the employers contribution would be more salary to the worker as it is a cost of labor. But even without it they pay about 7.5% directly.
the thread is about raising the top income tax rate to 90% not about payroll taxes and social security so there should be no need to explain my post as I was on topic.
Because they earned their money and they should keep it. The same way you dont want to pay 90%
Unless I miss my guess, he is engaging in sarcasm to make a point.The social democrats are supposed to come back and say something smart
That was an estimated average figure, not an assertion that you or everyone pays that effective rate. Some pay more, some pay less. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
I thought you were talking about the people who would be subject to the 90% tax (if it were to be imposed). My bad if I misapprehended you.
As a point of reference though, the top 1% of income earners earn 18% of all income earned in the US. However, they pay 39% of all income taxes paid in the US.
Given that, how much is their "fair share?"
On the other hand, the top 1% only pay about 4% of payroll taxes like medicare and SS.
Fair if you are asking my opinion would be some percentage higher than the percentage of total income they earned. How much higher depends on a number of factors (like how much the Govt is in debt) but somewhere around 10-20 points would be my estimation.
I thought you were talking about the people who would be subject to the 90% tax (if it were to be imposed). My bad if I misapprehended you.
As a point of reference though, the top 1% of income earners earn 18% of all income earned in the US. However, they pay 39% of all income taxes paid in the US.
Given that, how much is their "fair share?"
Are you including all the taxes we pay in school taxes, gas taxes, road taxes, sales taxes?
I bet we pay more TAXES than they do.
And I bet their income tax numbers are misleading. They probably get it all back thru loopholes you don't even know about unless you work for Lehman Brothers.
I'm talking about federal income tax. If you have a problem with your state or local taxes, that's for your local situation. I don't know who the "we" and "they" are in your class warfare rant.
Because they earned their money and they should keep it. The same way you dont want to pay 90%
Unless I miss my guess, he is engaging in sarcasm to make a point.
what's a social democrat?
if he has a point... i think it's probably on the top of his head, because it isn't in his upteenth trolling thread.
These positions often include support for a democratic welfare state which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism, sometimes termed the mixed economy.[2] This differs from traditional socialism, which aims to end capitalism altogether. Social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the social injustice and inefficiencies they see as inherent in capitalism.
You're STATISTS. ...
What exactly is a "statist". I heard Mark Levine use that word, and now I see it being parrotted here, but I'm not sure what it means. Someone who thinks there should be a government?
I thought I gave a fairly succinct description in my post above.
(A statist) want(s) (emphasize) centralized power of the state and de-emphasized autonomy of the individual.
It is from Mark Levin, but not a parrot of what he says. I find it a better definition of what I observe than some of the tags I was trying to stick on it before like marxist or socialist. That's because, it doesn't really matter what the economics of the statist are, it is more important that they emphasize centralized control to the detriment of individual liberty.
Both Republicans and Democrats can be statists. I would argue that both Bushs were statists. It is a matter of degree, speed and focus, just how a particular flavor of statist deprives the individual of their liberty. The Republican flavor does it at a generally slower speed and slightly different focus and the Democrat flavor does it a faster speed and another focus.
That's what it means to me anyway. I can only speak for myself. But, I think the focus of the "Statist" appellation is to denote a control befreft of any economic meaning. So, you could be a fascist statist or a communist statist or a socialist statist.
I actually think it's a pretty absurd allegation.....
once again, if it were true, it wouldn't be the red states sucking the federal dollars out of the sytem in welfare funds.
you know, the funds that are paid by the blue states.
Social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the social injustice and inefficiencies they see as inherent in capitalism.
I call bullshit. My effective rate was over 13 percent this year and much as I'd like to be, I'm not in the top bracket and I had a shit load of special deductions. If I didn't have all those deductions, my effective rate would have been at least 20%.
Those effected by the AMT are gonna pay a shitload more than 20%.
That was an estimated average figure, not an assertion that you or everyone pays that effective rate. Some pay more, some pay less. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
I thought you were talking about the people who would be subject to the 90% tax (if it were to be imposed). My bad if I misapprehended you.
As a point of reference though, the top 1% of income earners earn 18% of all income earned in the US. However, they pay 39% of all income taxes paid in the US.
Given that, how much is their "fair share?"
I actually think it's a pretty absurd allegation.....
once again, if it were true, it wouldn't be the red states sucking the federal dollars out of the sytem in welfare funds.
you know, the funds that are paid by the blue states.
I actually think it's a pretty absurd allegation.....
once again, if it were true, it wouldn't be the red states sucking the federal dollars out of the sytem in welfare funds.
you know, the funds that are paid by the blue states.
I think this has already been covered Jillian. Those federal welfare dollars, as you put them, include things like SS. Many more retirees move to red states where cost of living is lower, and therefore, they collect more "welfare". I'm sure everyone considers SS welfare. On top of this, the percentage of money spent on highways and other types of projects, plus military spending that is higher in many red states, all goes to benefit everyone, not just the red states themselves.
What exactly is a "statist". I heard Mark Levine use that word, and now I see it being parrotted here, but I'm not sure what it means. Someone who thinks there should be a government?
I thought I gave a fairly succinct description in my post above.
(A statist) want(s) (emphasize) centralized power of the state and de-emphasized autonomy of the individual.
It is from Mark Levin, but not a parrot of what he says. I find it a better definition of what I observe than some of the tags I was trying to stick on it before like marxist or socialist. That's because, it doesn't really matter what the economics of the statist are, it is more important that they emphasize centralized control to the detriment of individual liberty.
Both Republicans and Democrats can be statists. I would argue that both Bushs were statists. It is a matter of degree, speed and focus, just how a particular flavor of statist deprives the individual of their liberty. The Republican flavor does it at a generally slower speed and slightly different focus and the Democrat flavor does it a faster speed and another focus.
That's what it means to me anyway. I can only speak for myself. But, I think the focus of the "Statist" appellation is to denote a control befreft of any economic meaning. So, you could be a fascist statist or a communist statist or a socialist statist.
I started thinking about how Republicans/Libertarians phylosophies are survival of the fittest/social darwinism.
So I looked it up, and it mentioned that the term and theory came to be back during the Guilded Age when the original robber baron's were doing just about the same thing that the GOP from 2000-2006 did. And back then we had to ultimately break up Standard Oil. Same guys started the federal reserve. Some say they are the ones who own/control our country/politicians.
They raised inflation so that people who once talked about thousands were suddenly talking in millions. And today we talk billions like we used to talk about millions.
And today, if you haven't noticed, the Robber Baron's are back, and they did the same thing to us now that they did back then, that also led to the first Great Depression.
For the novel, see The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today.
"The Breakers", a gilded-age Victorian mansion in Newport, Rhode Island.In American history, the Gilded Age refers to substantial growth in population in the United States and extravagant displays of wealth and excess of America's upper-class during the post-Civil War and post-Reconstruction era, in the late 19th century (1865-1901). The wealth polarization derived primarily from industrial and population expansion. The businessmen of the Second Industrial Revolution created industrial towns and cities in the Northeast with new factories, and contributed to the creation of an ethnically diverse industrial working class which produced the wealth owned by rising super-rich industrialists and financiers such as Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Flagler, and J.P. Morgan. Their critics called them "robber barons", referring to their use of overpowering and sometimes unethical financial manipulations. There was a small, growing labor union movement, led in part by Samuel Gompers, who created the American Federation of Labor (AFL), founded in 1886. It featured very close contests between the Republicans and Democrats, with occasional third parties. Nearly all the eligible men were political partisans and voter turnout often exceeded 90% in some states.
This period also witnessed the creation of a modern industrial economy. A national transportation and communication network was created, the corporation became the dominant form of business organization, and a managerial revolution transformed business operations. By the beginning of the twentieth century, per capita income and industrial production in the United States exceeded that of any other country except Britain. Long hours and hazardous working conditions led many workers to attempt to form labor unions despite strong opposition from industrialists and the courts.
Is history repeating itself?
I actually think it's a pretty absurd allegation.....
once again, if it were true, it wouldn't be the red states sucking the federal dollars out of the sytem in welfare funds.
you know, the funds that are paid by the blue states.
I think this has already been covered Jillian. Those federal welfare dollars, as you put them, include things like SS. Many more retirees move to red states where cost of living is lower, and therefore, they collect more "welfare". I'm sure everyone considers SS welfare. On top of this, the percentage of money spent on highways and other types of projects, plus military spending that is higher in many red states, all goes to benefit everyone, not just the red states themselves.
I actually think it's a pretty absurd allegation.....
once again, if it were true, it wouldn't be the red states sucking the federal dollars out of the sytem in welfare funds.
you know, the funds that are paid by the blue states.
I think this has already been covered Jillian. Those federal welfare dollars, as you put them, include things like SS. Many more retirees move to red states where cost of living is lower, and therefore, they collect more "welfare". I'm sure everyone considers SS welfare. On top of this, the percentage of money spent on highways and other types of projects, plus military spending that is higher in many red states, all goes to benefit everyone, not just the red states themselves.
