Taxes on the wealthy (in US) have gone down dramatically

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 6:13 PM GMT
    Don't believe the hype. Tax rates for wealthy are at historic lows but there's no job creation and they want more tax breaks. I call bullshit.

    Economic Policy InstituteWith Tax Day fast approaching and deficit reduction all the rage, one fact deserves significant attention: the wealthy are enjoying some of the lowest taxes in generations. The Figure shows the average tax rate in 1979, 1992, and 2007, as well as the tax rate for the top 1% of households, and the top 400 households (who have an average annual income of nearly $350 million). Since 1979, the country’s overall average tax rate—the share of income paid in taxes—has fallen slightly, but for those at the top of the earnings ladder this share has fallen dramatically.

    041411-snapshot.jpg

    This diminished tax burden on the wealthiest has contributed to the historically low federal revenue levels we are seeing today, and in turn, to higher deficits. The Congressional Budget Office projects federal revenue in 2011 will total 14.8% of GDP—the lowest level since 1950. At the same time that the tax burden has shifted away from the wealthy, this same top income group has enjoyed massively disproportionate income gains. Between 1992 and 2007, a time in which income for the average household and top one percent grew 13% and 123%, respectively, the income for the top 400 households grew fully 399%.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 6:16 PM GMT
    The problem is that what's considered "wealthy" now is bullcrap. 200k is not "wealthy", IMO.

    Also, job creation is heavily tethered to the perceived climate of the market, because people won't invest in businesses that require new jobs or embark on business expansion if they feel like things are uncertain and their investment won't pay off. So it has a ripple effect.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 6:24 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidThe problem is that what's considered "wealthy" now is bullcrap. 200k is not "wealthy", IMO.

    Also, job creation is heavily tethered to the perceived climate of the market, because people won't invest in businesses that require new jobs or embark on business expansion if they feel like things are uncertain and their investment won't pay off. So it has a ripple effect.


    Those statistics are not about people with $200k in income. It's the top 1%.

    And climate uncertainty is bullshit. If there's demand, businesses will invest or expand. There's no demand in the US because all the money is at the very top. It's like an ecosystem where the top predator has killed off all the birds and fish that feed it's prey. The cycle is top-heavy and disrupted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 6:25 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidDon't believe the hype. Tax rates for wealthy are at historic lows but there's no job creation and they want more tax breaks.


    So what.

    The Federal government squanders most of what they take in anyway. They don't need any more.


    Bullshit. Prove it. Let's see stats what waste and squandering.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 6:29 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidDon't believe the hype. Tax rates for wealthy are at historic lows but there's no job creation and they want more tax breaks.


    So what.

    The Federal government squanders most of what they take in anyway. They don't need any more.


    Bullshit. Prove it. Let's see stats what waste and squandering.


    If you don't know, there's no way of reaching you.


    That's what I thought. No proof. Just sad, talking points from 1982...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 6:29 PM GMT
    ]mocktwinkie said[/cite]The problem is that what's considered "wealthy" now is bullcrap. 200k is not "wealthy", IMO.



    Mocktwinkie's comment "Was Not Intended to be Factually Correct"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 7:37 PM GMT
    Well you know, even the rich deserve help too, look at what many contribute.

    But....... If you are productive, if you work, , if you are successful, if you create jobs, then you are a target of Obama.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 7:51 PM GMT
    LeanathleticDC said]mocktwinkie said[/cite]The problem is that what's considered "wealthy" now is bullcrap. 200k is not "wealthy", IMO.



    Mocktwinkie's comment "Was Not Intended to be Factually Correct"



    I now call them red herrings, to move the topic into sideways distractions. icon_wink.gif

    -Doug
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 14, 2011 7:51 PM GMT
    So the surplus that we had in the nineties with the economic boom we had at the sometime should never have happened because the top ten percent were taxed atbthe levels that Obama wants to bring back.....

    Why THE HELL should we give an INCH on Medicare nas on SOCIAL security while the top 2%are given one million dollars over ten years?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 9:36 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 saidDon't believe the hype. Tax rates for wealthy are at historic lows but there's no job creation and they want more tax breaks.


    So what.

    The Federal government squanders most of what they take in anyway. They don't need any more.


    Bullshit. Prove it. Let's see stats what waste and squandering.
    Actually Christian, even though it pains me dramatically, SB is correct. (in a form).. waste, fraud and abuse is a more pointed and accurate term to use.

    And oh, BTW SB,,, don't get all uppity, but this waste fraud and abuse happens and has happened under every administration regardless of president, congress/senate or party. It took place under Reagan massively just as bad as it did under Clinton, GW Bush as bad as Obama...

  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Apr 14, 2011 11:01 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidDon't believe the hype. Tax rates for wealthy are at historic lows but there's no job creation and they want more tax breaks. I call bullshit.

    Economic Policy InstituteWith Tax Day fast approaching and deficit reduction all the rage, one fact deserves significant attention: the wealthy are enjoying some of the lowest taxes in generations. The Figure shows the average tax rate in 1979, 1992, and 2007, as well as the tax rate for the top 1% of households, and the top 400 households (who have an average annual income of nearly $350 million). Since 1979, the country’s overall average tax rate—the share of income paid in taxes—has fallen slightly, but for those at the top of the earnings ladder this share has fallen dramatically.

    041411-snapshot.jpg

    This diminished tax burden on the wealthiest has contributed to the historically low federal revenue levels we are seeing today, and in turn, to higher deficits. The Congressional Budget Office projects federal revenue in 2011 will total 14.8% of GDP—the lowest level since 1950. At the same time that the tax burden has shifted away from the wealthy, this same top income group has enjoyed massively disproportionate income gains. Between 1992 and 2007, a time in which income for the average household and top one percent grew 13% and 123%, respectively, the income for the top 400 households grew fully 399%.





    WHERE in this posting is the figure of $200K mentioned?


    icon_confused.gif



    mocktwinkie busted by actual hard facts....once again.....


    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Apr 14, 2011 11:22 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]...$200K is the level at which the top Federal income tax rates kicks in for us.

    Or, according to Democrat math, that is the level at which one becomes a "millionaire."[/quote]


    works for me!

    200K is more than most of us here will consistantly make in one year.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Apr 14, 2011 11:28 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rnch said
    [cite]southbeach1500 said[/cite]...$200K is the level at which the top Federal income tax rates kicks in for us.

    Or, according to Democrat math, that is the level at which one becomes a "millionaire."



    works for me!

    200K is more than most of us here will consistantly make in one year.



    Most here won't consistently make $100K. Why not make that the new threshold for the top tax rate, as apparently your yardstick is, "if most people won't ever make a certain amount, that amount is what defines 'wealthy'"




    again...works for me!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 11:28 PM GMT
    "Most here won't consistently make $100K."


    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif


    Where did you get THAT information?

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 14, 2011 11:28 PM GMT
    icon_biggrin.gif oh I do declare

    you put up facts and the right gives you donuts

    200k ?
    Did I miss something where that number had been discussed before?



    if there was any number where a 2 was involved it was the top 2 PERCENT
    and lemme tell you
    there's a lot of sunshine between 200k and the top 2 percent in income
    icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2011 11:36 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark saidActually Christian, even though it pains me dramatically, SB is correct. (in a form).. waste, fraud and abuse is a more pointed and accurate term to use.

    And oh, BTW SB,,, don't get all uppity, but this waste fraud and abuse happens and has happened under every administration regardless of president, congress/senate or party. It took place under Reagan massively just as bad as it did under Clinton, GW Bush as bad as Obama...



    Of course, it's as old as government itself, which is why the less government takes from us and the less it does, the better.

    Perhaps now you understand what it's like to argue with many of the liberals on here when they keep spouting something that is patently false - as Christian did - and it's obvious to anybody not blinded by ideology that they are in the wrong, and NOBODY on "their side" calls them out on it.

    So now we await Christian's reply....
    Don't twist my reply as your case for triumph here.. I'm not talking about YOUR idea of less government, because it definitely is NOT the same as mine. I told you NOT to get "uppity" and you are doing just that. Re-read what I said. I talked about "waste, fraud and abuse", as far as "squandering", being a much better 'definition' of a lot of the problems. I'm not arguing with Christian, merely suggesting that the context of your reply was correct. But you didn't get a free pass either. As far as 'squandering' goes, yes, your high priests in the GOP/teapbaggers are just as guilty of 'squandering' tax dollars. and you'll never get them to stop.
    Did you ever stop to think that your ideology has blinded you? Look into the mirror.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Apr 14, 2011 11:47 PM GMT
    meninlove said"Most here won't consistently make $100K."


    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gif


    Where did you get THAT information?




    the same place that southbeach jane and mocktwinkie get THEIR information from!


    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 15, 2011 12:33 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark saidActually Christian, even though it pains me dramatically, SB is correct. (in a form).. waste, fraud and abuse is a more pointed and accurate term to use.

    And oh, BTW SB,,, don't get all uppity, but this waste fraud and abuse happens and has happened under every administration regardless of president, congress/senate or party. It took place under Reagan massively just as bad as it did under Clinton, GW Bush as bad as Obama...



    Of course, it's as old as government itself, which is why the less government takes from us and the less it does, the better.

    Perhaps now you understand what it's like to argue with many of the liberals on here when they keep spouting something that is patently false - as Christian did - and it's obvious to anybody not blinded by ideology that they are in the wrong, and NOBODY on "their side" calls them out on it.

    So now we await Christian's reply....
    Don't twist my reply as your case for triumph here.. I'm not talking about YOUR idea of less government because it definitely is NOT the same as mine. I told you NOT to get "uppity" and you are doing just that. Re-read what I said. I talked about "waste, fraud and abuse" as far as "squandering" being a much better 'definition' of a lot of the problems. I'm not arguing with Christian, merely suggesting that the context of your reply was correct. But you didn't get a free pass either. As far as 'squandering' goes, yes, your high priests in the GOP/teapbaggers are just as guilty of 'squandering' tax dollars. and you'll never get them to stop.
    Did you ever stop to think that your ideology has blinded you? Look into the mirror.



    Well, that cease fire sure lasted... icon_rolleyes.gif

    We'll see if Christian takes the nice "out" you gave him and goes with your redefinition / refinement of what I said.
    Its not meant as a 'fire/ceasefire'....... you said "squandered', I agreed, in 'form', stating it was better defined as "waste fraud and abuse". And I made that clear to Christian. I agreed it doesn't need more (but it doesnt need less).. however, we never discussed the fact that I think they (congress and the American taxpayer) need to DEAL with rampant 'waste fraud and abuse' as a first option.
    Now quit trying to stir shit up when no one is stirring the swamp mud you're sitting in.
    A better reply from you would have been "thanks, thats sounds like something I can agree with".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 15, 2011 12:34 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark said
    southbeach1500 said
    TropicalMark saidActually Christian, even though it pains me dramatically, SB is correct. (in a form).. waste, fraud and abuse is a more pointed and accurate term to use.

    And oh, BTW SB,,, don't get all uppity, but this waste fraud and abuse happens and has happened under every administration regardless of president, congress/senate or party. It took place under Reagan massively just as bad as it did under Clinton, GW Bush as bad as Obama...



    Of course, it's as old as government itself, which is why the less government takes from us and the less it does, the better.

    Perhaps now you understand what it's like to argue with many of the liberals on here when they keep spouting something that is patently false - as Christian did - and it's obvious to anybody not blinded by ideology that they are in the wrong, and NOBODY on "their side" calls them out on it.

    So now we await Christian's reply....
    Don't twist my reply as your case for triumph here.. I'm not talking about YOUR idea of less government because it definitely is NOT the same as mine. I told you NOT to get "uppity" and you are doing just that. Re-read what I said. I talked about "waste, fraud and abuse" as far as "squandering" being a much better 'definition' of a lot of the problems. I'm not arguing with Christian, merely suggesting that the context of your reply was correct. But you didn't get a free pass either. As far as 'squandering' goes, yes, your high priests in the GOP/teapbaggers are just as guilty of 'squandering' tax dollars. and you'll never get them to stop.
    Did you ever stop to think that your ideology has blinded you? Look into the mirror.



    Well, that cease fire sure lasted... icon_rolleyes.gif

    We'll see if Christian takes the nice "out" you gave him and goes with your redefinition / refinement of what I said.


    SB Said: "The Federal government squanders most of what they take in anyway. They don't need any more."

    "Most" is defined:

    Definition of MOST
    1: greatest in quantity, extent, or degree

    2: the majority of

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/most

    So, despite SB's lame rhetorical tricks, I never said there wasn't waste in government. Rather, I called bullshit on the idea that 51% of more of federal revenues is "squandered."

    I stand by my statement and await SB's accounting of how 51% of federal expenditures are squandered (or wasted).