Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 126
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a PartyPage 6 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Gee... it's hard to get a lower tax liability than zero-- unless it's a tax credit. Isn't this where the proverbial "business unburdened by government taxation" is supposed to open up hiring to Americans?

Makes you wonder.
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 127
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 3/29/2011 1:20:26 PM
The top 5% pays for 60% of the taxes in this country, not 70% as I originally claimed. The 70% is paid by the top 10% of workers in the country. Source..

For starters your source is a conservative think tank funded by the Koch brothers so that alone may make you question the data but that aside that chart only shows total amounts and does not address the %'s that are paid by each group and the top 1% pay allot less by % of income then the bottom 95%.




Furthermore, the top 1% now pays more in taxes each year than the bottom 95%. And each year, the top 1% pays more in relation to the bottom 95% than the year before. In other words, it's getting worse. Source

The only reason they are paying more is because they are earning more.

So yes it is getting worse, as the gap widens and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 128
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 3/29/2011 3:13:44 PM

You mean they Earn more...they do not "get" anything more than anyone else other than what they earn. "Fair Share" is it Fair that a person works 20 hours a day borrows money against everything he owns to start a business, work years and years to make if profitable, end up employing thousands of people then we he starts making a substantial "Profit" the Liberals expect him to pay what they determine to be his "Fair" share?


Check your dictionary! Earn and get are synonyms. And I will stand by my point that the rich people get a lot more out the system. Not only they get gigantic amounts of profits, but they get to keep a large portion of it. And they get all the protections that the system affords to the rich people.

You keep on going back to the mantra of the self-made entrepreneur who becomes rich by his/her own efforts. Nobody is arguing that they shouldn't enjoy the rewards of their hard work, except that they should contribute to the maintenance of the civilized society. If they don't do that, then the civilized society may fracture itself, and as a consequence those rich people may end up not enjoying their wealth so much. That's why some of those wealthy entrepreneurs pay their fair share without complaining, and even more, they contribute large amounts of money to charitable purposes. They understand that it is in their best interest to preserve the civilized society as long as we can. The polarization of our society into a few extreme rich people and a large majority of poor people may have some unpredictable consequences.

Now, can you tell us that all the rich people/capitalists in this country are self-made entrepreneurs, like the ones that you like to defend from the tax-man?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 129
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 3/29/2011 3:40:29 PM


or starters your source is a conservative think tank funded by the Koch brothers so that alone may make you question the data but that aside that chart only shows total amounts and does not address the %'s that are paid by each group and the top 1% pay allot less by % of income then the bottom 95%.


See the link in msg 118 for a much more in depth analysis. The "rich" (whoever they are) actually pay a greater % of their income than the "poor" (whoever they are). The figures differ by about a factor of 10.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 130
view profile
History
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 3/29/2011 3:44:09 PM
For starters your source is a conservative think tank funded by the Koch brothers so that alone may make you question the data

Then you should have no trouble finding a source that illustrates its fallacy.


The only reason they are paying more is because they are earning more.

This is obvious, but you don't think that maybe 1% vs 95% is a bit ridiculous? They're not even nearly making as much as the other 95% combined.


that chart only shows total amounts and does not address the %'s that are paid by each group and the top 1% pay allot less by % of income then the bottom 95%.

I highly doubt that. The AMT has grown fangs in the past 30 years. I would imagine that this statement is entirely false. But if you believe it's so, then feel free to demonstrate it. Some sort of citation on tax data.

Edit to add:

Yup, you're wrong again. The top 1% pay a higher average income tax rate than any other bracket:

Top 1%: 23.27%
Top 5% excluding top 1%: 17.21%
Top 10% excluding top 5%: 12.44%
Top 25% excluding top 10%: 9.29%

Source

In the future, before you make up facts to support your argument, do know that if you do it with me, I am going to fact check you. So please, don't make up things on the spot just because you think it'll help you win an argument. Do your research.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 131
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 3/30/2011 6:37:34 PM


In the future, before you make up facts to support your argument, do know that if you do it with me, I am going to fact check you. So please, don't make up things on the spot just because you think it'll help you win an argument. Do your research.


Remember, the people on the left need to believe that the rich aren't paying their fair share. You can't use class warfare to justify the behemoth nanny state if the rich are paying their fair share.
 4rumninja
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 132
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 3/31/2011 5:05:27 AM
Interesting to see those who want to Force the "Rich" to pay more....totally ignore the fact that there are Millions who pay no Income tax at all...they receive every dollar that they paid in...due to all of the tax credits...
"The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment."
"ax Policy Center, a well-regarded think tank, calculated that 47% of Americans would owe no federal income taxes for 2009, up from the usual 38% who typically owe no income tax on April 15"
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 133
view profile
History
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 3/31/2011 5:16:49 AM
"Since these things are now collectivized, are you suggesting that the businesses should pay for them all separately, even when the general public uses these services and facilities in equal time? Or do you think that corporate taxes don't go towards paying for these things? "

Not at all. First of all, these things are not "collectivized," that's a communist term. My point is, that if YOU are going to suggest that only people who directly USE something should have to pay taxes to support it, then you WILL have the result that only the people who use overseas workers, and overseas trade will be paying for the Navy.
I'm also trying to get you to recognize that it is NOT VALID to START from the way things are now, and suddenly switch and say "okay, now that we've built up a complete national highway system, Army, Navy, and the rest of our physical plant, all paid for and constructed by ALL of us, we are going to decide that those who aren't using it RIGHT THIS MINUTE don't have to pay to support it." That would be no different than what teh Communists proposed doing, to take over a government/nation after the capitalists had built it up, and suddenly redistribute everything to every one else.
You can't say that it's okay for entrepeneurs to utilize the populace who's educational preparation they do NOT fund, as resources in their businesses, without having an logical requirement to fund that education. The fact that they use their personal funds to put their own kids in private schools, has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
Some folks have proposed we switch to a "fee-based" form of government, envisioning that they will only have to pay the same token prices they do now, to get the intermittent government services they want, when they want them. That if they don't DIRECTLY use something, like a park area, or a local school, or an interstate highway, that they shouldn't have to pay so the rest of us can use them. Thus, those folks (I'm not accusing you of being one, using them as examples of similar thinking) expect that if they went to a "pay as you go system, " that the fees they'd have to pay, would be the SAME as what they pay now. They ignore the fact that the entire BACK cost of making those services available has already been paid for, AND that they are using everyone elses paid taxes to maintain it.
I also contend, that though the wealthy might not realize or admit it, they DO use more of the resources of the country than the poor and middle classes do, BECAUSE their lives require the existence of the rest of us, to make what they DO use available. Therefore it is fiscally LOGICAL that they should pay more of the costs. A higher tax rate on the wealthy is therefore LOGICAL AND JUST.
 wisguyingb
Joined: 1/5/2008
Msg: 134
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 3/31/2011 6:37:59 AM

I also contend, that though the wealthy might not realize or admit it, they DO use more of the resources of the country than the poor and middle classes do


So you speak for all the rich and all the poor?

I know a lot of poor people who crank out babies like Henry Ford cranked out cars on an assembly line. IMO these people whom make herds of babies are far more damaging (to the planet) then the rich guy who lives up on the hill. True he may use more fuel, and take up more land. But we taxpayers help feed and cloth these poor people's baby herds they create. More people equals more strain on the planet's ability to feed everyone (And we encourage this mass baby making by awarding people with welfare in order to care for their mass baby herd's that they can't care for on their own) In the end we are left with more people who in the future will use up more raw material and resources. We need a system that encourages people to have less babies. I don't know about you but I don't like seeing my hard earned money taken from me thru taxes and given to people who have nothing better to do then sell drugs on the corner, live off the system or practice their exercise while lying on their backs. It's not my job to care about or help those that do not want to help themselves. Heck, I think we should double or triple the amount of abortion clinic's in the nation. As well as make it ultra easy for those who want to get an abortion.

In the end, more rich people have put other people to work and paid them $$$. Where as poor people tend to hold everyone back since they require mine and everyone's $$$$ to survive.

If I ever win the lottery I'm not gonna give on dime to charity. Instead I plan on starting a company and giving people the chance to work and make money thru hard work. Now that's helping society. And if I have bad workers I'd fire their azz. IMO giving handout's only encourages this welfare society behavior. How many people would "fight the hand that feeds them?"....
 4rumninja
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 135
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 3/31/2011 7:46:58 AM

I also contend, that though the wealthy might not realize or admit it, they DO use more of the resources of the country than the poor and middle classes do, BECAUSE their lives require the existence of the rest of us, to make what they DO use available. Therefore it is fiscally LOGICAL that they should pay more of the costs. A higher tax rate on the wealthy is therefore LOGICAL AND JUST.
"Logical and Just"....is it logical that almost 50% of the population end up paying no Federal Income tax..they Utilize the system. Trying to follow your logic they should pay more because we exist? Because we make what they use available? They pay Taxes which pay for whatever they use...those who provide whatever it may be are paid by this tax revenue..If we apply your logic then it is not fair for anyone who doesn't pay Income tax to use roads,be protected by our Army, or utilize any Government service.

The problem with your argument is that the "Rich" already do pay more.The whole tax rate argument is BS ...they make more even if they paid the same percent they would pay substantially more than the average person who actually pays taxes...

Liberals want to use taxation to punish the Rich because they do not think it is "Fair" that some have more than others even though those who have more typically take more chances, risk more, invest more time and effort to earn more.

question: why is this taxation expectation limited to Business persons, why not actors, Pro Athletes and other Entertainers?
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 136
view profile
History
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 3/31/2011 8:14:35 AM
Not at all. First of all, these things are not "collectivized," that's a communist term.

Sure they are. They're collectively paid for, and collectively used. It may be a term that also describes things in a communist system, but it's an apt term. Perhaps it's because I didn't grow up in the height of the cold war, but I'm not afraid of using terms that may be associated with communism. Most of FDR's "new deal" was practically taken straight from the communist platform.


My point is, that if YOU are going to suggest that only people who directly USE something should have to pay taxes to support it, then you WILL have the result that only the people who use overseas workers, and overseas trade will be paying for the Navy.

I don't think I suggested anything like that. I merely was rebutting the idea that the rich don't pay their fair share. They do pay their share, and the share of the bottom 40% of wage-earners, as well. They carry the burden for most of the cost of government, despite utilizing less of its services than many in that bottom 40%. I am not saying they should pay only for what they use. Though I think our system is too collectivized at the moment, and should be more market-driven, I'm not suggesting that we disband the government and have tribal leaders run their neighborhoods (which would be the extreme of having people pay for only exactly what they use).


You can't say that it's okay for entrepeneurs to utilize the populace who's educational preparation they do NOT fund, as resources in their businesses, without having an logical requirement to fund that education

I think I did a poor job addressing this in my last post. They do fund these educations. For one thing, ignoring taxes, it's well worth someone paying out of their own pocket for an education due to the significantly higher wage they can obtain with that education.


I also contend, that though the wealthy might not realize or admit it, they DO use more of the resources of the country than the poor and middle classes do, BECAUSE their lives require the existence of the rest of us, to make what they DO use available. Therefore it is fiscally LOGICAL that they should pay more of the costs. A higher tax rate on the wealthy is therefore LOGICAL AND JUST.

Can you justify this? What, in terms of government, tax-funded services, do the wealthy use more of?

Secondly, can't you have the same tax rate, and that would mean that the wealthy do pay more? In terms of them using more (according to you), as scales up by their income, wouldn't that scale up the taxes they pay?
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 137
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 3/31/2011 10:41:35 AM

question: why is this taxation expectation limited to Business persons, why not actors, Pro Athletes and other Entertainers?


It shouldn't be limited to business people. Taxation rates should be according to the level of income.


Liberals want to use taxation to punish the Rich because they do not think it is "Fair" that some have more than others even though those who have more typically take more chances, risk more, invest more time and effort to earn more.


Well, take for example one of those corporate farmers, those that take a lot of chances with the law by bringing illegal aliens (or undocumented workers, if you prefer) to work on their fields for slave wages. Why shouldn't that criminal corporate farmer pay more taxes, and all the taxes that his/her workers don't pay because the criminal corporate farmer pays them minimal wages, so the workers don't qualify as taxpayers to our system. Why should we have to pay the taxes that those workers don't pay just because the rich, criminal corporate farmer wants to keep that money as part of his profits? After all he is taking a lot of chances, right?


"Logical and Just"....is it logical that almost 50% of the population end up paying no Federal Income tax..they Utilize the system.


Yes, it is logical and just. People who don't pay Federal Income tax are the people who don't earn enough to qualify as taxpayers, and as I illustrated above, the reason may be that someone is keeping them from becoming taxpayers.
 4rumninja
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 138
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 3/31/2011 11:14:00 AM

the reason may be that someone is keeping them from becoming taxpayers.
Really? Keeping them down? Everyone in America has equal opportunity to make however much money they want..Millionaires come in every color.....
 wisguyingb
Joined: 1/5/2008
Msg: 139
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 3/31/2011 2:24:42 PM

Millionaires come in every color.....


They sure do! There's a 65 year old guy whom I work with that is a millionaire. If you met him on the street you'd think he was homeless. Drives the same truck for the past 20 years, works as much as he can and is even getting a part time job to go along with his full time job. He owns something like 4 houses that he rents, a huge lot over by Lambeau Field in which he parks cars on game day and 2 oil change shops. The sad thing is that he never "enjoys" much of his hard earned $$$ and is only focused on how much more he can make. Literally all the guy talks about is $$ and at the age of 65 I personally would want to enjoy it rather then look at some bank statement for enjoyment. He does have a huge house but he's never home. His wife probably prefers that cuz this guy can drive ya nuts after awhile. Hell of a nice guy but things get old when every converstation is about $$$.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 140
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 3/31/2011 3:28:50 PM


the reason may be that someone is keeping them from becoming taxpayers.


Really? Keeping them down? Everyone in America has equal opportunity to make however much money they want..Millionaires come in every color


I don't give a rat's ass what color they are. They might be purple, green, orange for all I care. (Nice try at deviating from the point in discussion, though), and I don't care if they are millionaires after working all their lives and saving every penny; as long as they paid their fair share, they are ok. with me.

The point is not if someone wants to make a lot of money working hard and long. The point was that there are people who earn high incomes from the exploitation of their workers. Those workers don't receive enough pay from their employers for their work, therefore they can't pay income taxes. The rest of us have to pay more into the system to make up for the workers who don't qualify as taxpayers. So, I say that it is only fair and just that the rich employers, who are keeping as profits the money that they should be paying to their workers, pay a lot more taxes to make up for the tax shortage caused by his/her workers not being able to pay taxes.

That's the point, not the color of the millionaires.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 141
view profile
History
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 4/2/2011 5:44:01 PM
To all and sundry who support the idea that the rich should NOT pay a higher tax rate than the less rich:
I am saying that if you simply look at what they ACTUALLY get for their money, they are getting a HUGE break, even at the higher rates that they NO LONGER pay. Just as those of us who ACTUALLY sweat and exhaust ourselves to earn our way in the world are expected to accept that how HARD the work is, has nothing to do with how much you should be paid, the rich should accept that how hard THEY worked to get the returns they did, ALSO has nothing to do with how much they should get for THEIR work either. ESPECIALLY if they want to claim that they believe in basic, unfettered capitalism.
There has NEVER been a link between how much you make, and how hard you work, or how much pain you go through, or anything of the kind. In the same way, how much you ought to PAY, should not be influenced by how hard you worked, or how clever you are, etc.
Again, people who want special treatment tax-wise, because they employ others, are full of crap. Because they already GET the reward they deserve for employing people: THEY GET TO PROFIT BY THEIR EMPLOYEES LABOR. That's ALL they deserve for it. Unless, of course, you are now going to say you are actually COMMUNISTS, or SOCIALISTS, and you believe that employers are hiring people just so that they will have incomes, and be able to buy things.
The idea that wealthy investors deserve praise, or thanks, or special treatment because they DID invest, is a crass manipulation of the basic facts and design of capitalism. It is a lie, promulgated by those who are ONLY looking at how much they are paying, and want to pay less. It is no different from those at the other end, who say that people WITH more, should have to PAY more, simply because they HAVE the ability to pay.
I began to recognize these things, when I stopped accepting ANY emotionally based arguments about who should pay what, and started looking instead at who USES what, and how much of what government and "public" services there are, exist because people who are trying to MAKE money, need them. When you unemotionally look at it that way, you will find (if you are honest) that almost ALL of the most expensive government expenditures are there to help the wealthy stay that way, and become more so. Without them, they would be unable to accomplish what they have. Without the Army, the Navy, the Police, Public Education, and the RULE OF LAW ITSELF (i.e. the entirety of government), the rich COULD NOT EXIST. Thus it is logical that they should pay more for those services.
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 142
view profile
History
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 4/4/2011 5:40:54 PM

There has NEVER been a link between how much you make, and how hard you work, or how much pain you go through, or anything of the kind.

Totally and completely false, except (possibly) in the realm of organized labour.

Again, people who want special treatment tax-wise, because they employ others, are full of crap.

Firstly, I don't think any captains of industry are taking part in this thread... so what would be the motivations for those of us who disagree with you?

Secondly, the rates the rich pay are already substantially higher than the rest of us... even with the extension of tax cuts that were extended to everyone. This has been shown to you already.

There is no special treatment for the rich... what you are asking for is special discrimination towards the rich.

It is a lie, promulgated by those who are ONLY looking at how much they are paying, and want to pay less. It is no different from those at the other end, who say that people WITH more, should have to PAY more, simply because they HAVE the ability to pay.

If you recognize this is a lie, why do you keep repeating it?

Without the Army, the Navy, the Police, Public Education, and the RULE OF LAW ITSELF (i.e. the entirety of government), the rich COULD NOT EXIST.

Yes, you can look back throughout history... before there was public education nobody was wealthy.... wait a sec... that can't be right? And which neighborhoods would be more demanding of police resources... the rich or the poor? Welfare, social security, medical funding, these are all in place to benefit the rich in some nefarious scheme?

When I take an unemotional detached look at how your country conducts it's business I say "Keep it up America. You guys now have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and the people in my country are reaping the benefits."
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 143
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 4/5/2011 6:26:56 AM
Furthermore, the top 1% now pays more in taxes each year than the bottom 95%. And each year, the top 1% pays more in relation to the bottom 95% than the year before. In other words, it's getting worse. Source

So, why didn't you mention the rest of the story.

While the top 1% paid 40% of all Fed Income taxes they also earn more than 23% of all income in the US- WAY up from just 9% in 1980.

The fact is that only the very rich have prospered from the market idolatry that began in the 1980s. The situation has become so bad, that shortly before the crash of 2007, an important milestone was reached: for the first time ever, the top 1 percent of Americans made more than a thousand times that of the average family in the bottom 90 percent.

That same group now holds more wealth ($3.3 trillion or 33.8 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (28.5 percent). And making matters worse, the Federal Reserve analysis that provided these numbers excludes the wealth of the Forbes Top 400 wealthiest people — a group with $1.3 trillion in wealth, more than the bottom 50 percent of Americans.

The top 1% pay a very small fraction of their income on Social Security, Sales Tax, Property tax and State income taxes (especially in those states without income tax)

http://www.thinkersjam.com/keep-your-eye-on-the-ball-america-part-1/





The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party

The GOP's budget proposal gets rid of Medicare and Medicaid but preserves tax cuts for the wealthy and leaves the defense budget untouched.

So, for those keeping score:

Billionaire industrialists = 1

Regular Americans = 0
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 144
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 4/5/2011 7:31:04 AM

Secondly, the rates the rich pay are already substantially higher than the rest of us... even with the extension of tax cuts that were extended to everyone. This has been shown to you already.

If you are talking about the super rich, the top 1% that statement is 100% BS.



The top 1 percent's share of national income has doubled over the past three decades (from 10 percent in 1981 to well over 20 percent now). The richest one-tenth of 1 percent's share has tripled. And they're doing better than ever. According to a new analysis by the Wall Street Journal, total compensation and benefits at publicly-traded Wall Street banks and securities firms hit a record in 2010 -- $135 billion. That's up 5.7 percent from 2009.

Yet, remarkably, taxes on the top have plummeted. From the 1940s until 1980, the top tax income tax rate on the highest earners in America was at least 70 percent. In the 1950s, it was 91 percent. Now it's 35 percent. Even if you include deductions and credits, the rich are now paying a far lower share of their incomes in taxes than at any time since World War II.

The estate tax (which only hits the top 2 percent) has also been slashed. In 2000 it was 55 percent and kicked in after $1 million. Today it's 35 percent and kicks in at $5 million. Capital gains – comprising most of the income of the super-rich – were taxed at 35 percent in the late 1980s. They're now taxed at 15 percent.

If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they'd be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That's enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits.

If we also cut what we don't need (corporate welfare and bloated defense), taxes could be reduced for everyone earning under $80,000, too. And with a single payer health-care system – Medicare for all – instead of a gaggle of for-profit providers, the nation could save billions more.

Yes, the rich will find ways to avoid paying more taxes courtesy of clever accountants and tax attorneys. But this has always been the case regardless of where the tax rate is set. That's why the government should aim high. (During the 1950s, when the top rate was 91 percent, the rich exploited loopholes and deductions that as a practical matter reduced the effective top rate 50 to 60 percent -- still substantial by today's standards.)

And yes, some of the super rich will move their money to the Cayman Islands and other tax shelters. But paying taxes is a central obligation of citizenship, and those who take their money abroad in an effort to avoid paying American taxes should lose their American citizenship.

But don't the super-rich have enough political power to kill any attempt to get them to pay their fair share? Only if we let them. Here's the issue around which Progressives, populists on the right and left, unionized workers, and all other working people who are just plain fed up ought to be able to unite.



http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/04/04/tax_disparity_income_2012_robert_reich
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 145
view profile
History
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 4/5/2011 7:19:35 PM

If you are talking about the super rich, the top 1% that statement is 100% BS.

I find it amazing how selective your reading comprehension is. I clearly said "the rates the rich pay are already substantially higher than the rest of us... ", how does rates from the 1950's factor into my statement?

Again, here are the numbers provided by .dej:

Top 1%: 23.27%
Top 5% excluding top 1%: 17.21%
Top 10% excluding top 5%: 12.44%
Top 25% excluding top 10%: 9.29%

I've noticed you posting throughout my time here in some of the more frivolous threads... it's always like you're competing to attain the title of "Most Sarcastically Cynical". It wasn't until a few months ago that I realized how seriously one-sided your cynicism ran. You'd mentioned your dismay at finding out how much of a fraud Michael Moore was... this is something I'd figured out for myself a quarter way into his first movie.

^^^^It was at the point where the crazy old lady brained and butchered the cute little rabbit she'd been caressing... I guess the viewing audience was supposed to feel "Doesn't GM care about the bunnies at all!?!?"

At home I was thinking "What kind of clown would fall for this?"... now I know.

for the first time ever, the top 1 percent of Americans made more than a thousand times that of the average family in the bottom 90 percent.

Now... because of my own cynicism, and without bothering to use google, I can recognize that "that statement is 100% BS."
Let me explain my reasoning for you.

I'm guessing that the bottom 90 percent would average $20,000 to $30,000 per year (and I'm pretty sure I'm lowballing here).

So that would mean that the top 1% would average $20 to $30 million? BULL. I live in an area that has the one of the highest concentrations of millionaires in Canada (and probably North America). It would be much less than 1 percent of people up here that have a net worth of $20 million or higher.... but annual income?

Also:

That same group now holds more wealth ($3.3 trillion or 33.8 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (28.5 percent).

So... this group is earning 1000 times more wealth but only manages to hold onto an extra 5 percent more than the bottom 90?... your earlier post must have been wrong... the ultra wealthy must spend a very high percentage of their earnings... thus stimulating the economy.

Have you got anything you could copy and paste as a rebuttal?
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 146
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 4/6/2011 4:48:13 AM
I find it amazing how selective your reading comprehension is. I clearly said "the rates the rich pay are already substantially higher than the rest of us... ", how does rates from the 1950's factor into my statement?

Because I am talking about the % that the top 1% have been paying has been declining since ~1950.

1950 ~84%
1960 ~91%
1970 ~70%
1980 ~70%
1990 ~28%
2000 ~39%

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php



Now... because of my own cynicism, and without bothering to use google, I can recognize that "that statement is 100% BS."
Let me explain my reasoning for you.

I'm guessing that the bottom 90 percent would average $20,000 to $30,000 per year (and I'm pretty sure I'm lowballing here).

So that would mean that the top 1% would average $20 to $30 million? BULL. I live in an area that has the one of the highest concentrations of millionaires in Canada (and probably North America). It would be much less than 1 percent of people up here that have a net worth of $20 million or higher.... but annual income?

So let me get this right, because you live in an area that you say has the greatest concentration on millionaires in Canada and you are guessing at the what the median income of the bottom 90% make you can come to the conclusion that what I posted about the USA is BS.

Congratulations on your Epic fail at logic.

*The top 25 hedge fund managers averaged a nice take — in excess of $1 billion each in 2009. The king of the street, David Tepper, actually pocketed $4 billion for himself.

*Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/business/01hedge.html?_r=1




Have you got anything you could copy and paste as a rebuttal?

Yep, see above, although considering what you have already posted it may be over your level of comprehension.
 4rumninja
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 147
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 4/6/2011 5:11:59 AM
Ok, let me get this straight it's not "Fair" that millionaires don't pay what you think they should pay? But it's fair that close to 50 Million people don't pay any in income tax?

Please define "Fair"....

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" Is this what you have in mind?
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 148
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 4/6/2011 5:38:17 AM


Have you got anything you could copy and paste as a rebuttal?


Yep, see above, although considering what you have already posted it may be over your level of comprehension.


That last exchange is a good example of what posters that don't have a good grasp of the information being discussed shouldn't go around questioning other posters' reading comprehension ability. Nor should they act like some kind ignorant bully that relies on his own lack of solid facts to argue a point, and even confess that he is too lazy to even avail himself of the benefits offered by search engines to those who would like to offer an informed opinion.
 trinity818
Joined: 9/1/2006
Msg: 149
view profile
History
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 4/6/2011 6:14:37 AM
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party is their inability to put forth a moderate candidate. The further right they go, the more people they alienate.
 wisguyingb
Joined: 1/5/2008
Msg: 150
The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party
Posted: 4/6/2011 6:22:01 AM
^^I love it when liberals/left leaners and Democrats suggest who Republicans/right leaning voters should put forward. Would liberals pay any attention to which Democrats the Republicans suggest the Dems run?.....
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > The Republicans Single Greatest Problem as a Party