Are any of you part of the 1%

  • BCSwimmer

    Posts: 209

    Oct 12, 2011 9:51 PM GMT
    I am intrigued by the variety of discussions regarding the protests of the 99% which is frequently promoted as the "Occupy Together" movement and I have seen a number of members argue against the general premise of taxing the ultra rich their fair share. Even Warren Buffet, currently ranked the 3rd wealthiest person in the world, is calling for higher taxation on the super-wealthy (i.e. the 1% or ultra-rich) http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/12/news/economy/buffett_taxes_2010/.

    This got me thinking are any of those guys on here who are arguing against equitable taxing of the super wealthy members of the 1% themself (or perhaps they are just shills for the elite)?

    Incidentally I am well aware that the super wealthy pay the highest amount of tax but that argument doesn't fly with me I am talking about the percentage of tax they pay.

    I've seen the arguments that they pay a lot of taxes and shouldn't have to pay more but that same arguement could be used to justify the wealthy paying less in sales tax at the cash register. After all if they are spending more than the average person shouldn't they get to pay less tax??? Seriously who would support that idea? If a state tax is, say, 10% do you think the wealthy should get to pay only 5% sales tax at the cash register because they are spenidng more (and thereby actually paying a higher amount of tax)?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2011 10:02 PM GMT
    You have to remember that by taxing the wealthy we also tax the upper middle class (which is not making 10 mil a year.)

    My parents make around 350K a year. This is between their jobs as a professor and the outside consultant work that they do on the side (for one, this is at the request of big governments like the US, Taiwan, etc. so its more for the work than the money). They pay half of that in taxes between state and federal income taxes. So to say increase taxes on the rich, they are talking about taking away the majority of their income.

    On top of that, they have 6 kids to feed. They barely made by, paying for our college. Many times when people talk about raising taxes and the AMT they forget who they screw, the upper middle class.
  • BCSwimmer

    Posts: 209

    Oct 12, 2011 10:21 PM GMT
    Chainers saidYou have to remember that by taxing the wealthy we also tax the upper middle class (which is not making 10 mil a year.)

    My parents make around 350K a year. This is between their jobs as a professor and the outside consultant work that they do on the side (for one, this is at the request of big governments like the US, Taiwan, etc. so its more for the work than the money). They pay half of that in taxes between state and federal income taxes. So to say increase taxes on the rich, they are talking about taking away the majority of their income.

    On top of that, they have 6 kids to feed. They barely made by, paying for our college. Many times when people talk about raising taxes and the AMT they forget who they screw, the upper middle class.


    I hear you and understand that point. My question was pertaining to the super wealthy (the top 1%). Warren Buffet in recent interviews indicates how their tax rate has decreased from 29% to 21% in recent years.

    I am not talking about greater taxes on the upper middle classes but rather referring to the top 1% (who own 38% of the wealth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States and are paying a lower percentage in taxes than they did previsouly).

    About.com US Government Info According to Internal Revenue Service data cited by Buffett, the 400 wealthiest Americans earned $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum in 1992. By 2008, however, the wealthiest 400 Americans earned a stunning $90.9 billion but were paying a substantially smaller portion in taxes - 21.5 percent.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2011 10:37 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    BCSwimmer saidI have seen a number of members argue against the general premise of taxing the ultra rich their fair share. Even Warren Buffet, currently ranked the 3rd wealthiest person in the world, is calling for higher taxation on the super-wealthy (i.e. the 1% or ultra-rich) .

    This got me thinking are any of those guys on here who are arguing against equitable taxing of the super wealthy members of the 1% themself (or perhaps they are just shills for the elite)?


    First, check out this site, it's a fun calculator:

    http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/12/whats-your-us-income-ranking.html


    Second, I am in the top 1%


    Third, anyone earning $205,000 or more is in the top 1%.


    Fourth, you wrote "I have seen a number of members argue against the general premise of taxing the ultra rich their fair share."

    You may not be aware of this, but close to 50% of households in the USA pay ZERO in Federal income taxes, yet they receive the same access to Federal government services as the "top 1%" do.

    In fact, many of the 50% of households that pay ZERO in Federal income taxes receive services from the Federal government that the "top 1%" are prohibited from receiving.

    Most of the 50% of households paying ZERO in Federal income taxes do in fact have income.

    Due to these facts, and my own moral compass, it appears that the top 1% is paying more than their fair share and there's a huge segment of the population not paying their "fair share" at all.




    That cant possibly be right dude. My family earns that much and we are not in the top 1% of wealth.

    The top 1% have so much money they never need to work again. Thats the wealthy they talk about taxing.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Oct 12, 2011 10:38 PM GMT
    I think from my observation, there are two RealJockers who may very well be in that top 1%. I believe the 1% is defined based upon income and not net worth. Not something I spend a great deal of time considering to be honest.

    Furthermore, that claimed 99% is hardly 99%. I assure you come November 7, 2012 you will find out that a vast portion of the claimed 99% will vote Republican.

    As to more taxes......no and hell no.


    As for the lazy asses stinking up Zucotti Park...they can go straight to hell as far as I'm concerned.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2011 10:42 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Chainers said
    That cant possibly be right dude. My family earns that much and we are not in the top 1% of wealth.

    The top 1% have so much money they never need to work again. Thats the wealthy they talk about taxing.


    Clarification for the easily confused liberals: Chainers is being sarcastic.


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

    Oct 12, 2011 10:44 PM GMT
    Yea I was going to say I stand corrected.

    http://www.mybudget360.com/top-1-percent-control-42-percent-of-financial-wealth-in-the-us-how-average-americans-are-lured-into-debt-servitude-by-promises-of-mega-wealth/

    My family isnt in the top 1% but they are in the top 3%. I feel so dirty!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2011 11:53 PM GMT
    jpBITCHva saidSolution: pay them more.


    The basic problem with your response: your world view that people get paid - people don't earn.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 12:37 AM GMT
    BCSwimmer saidI am intrigued by the variety of discussions regarding the protests of the 99% which is frequently promoted as the "Occupy Together" movement and I have seen a number of members argue against the general premise of taxing the ultra rich their fair share. ...

    I take issue with the statement because it suggests that "their fair share" has been defined and agreed to, and consequently the only question is whether they should pay what everyone agrees is their fair share. As a counter-point to your question, many assert that the 1% already pays their fair share.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 1:08 AM GMT
    Chainers said
    My parents make around 350K a year.

    On top of that, they have 6 kids to feed.
    Maybe you should get your lazy ass out of momma's house and be on your own without the purse strings.. That way they could save some money by not supporting your lazy 24 yr old ass. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 1:16 AM GMT
    No where near the top 1%, don't see the need for it either, LOL, Here's a bit of personal experience, when my income from my day job and real estate investments was around $100,000 I had extra money because I always arranged my wants and personal bills in a frugal way, so that I didn't need much to live on.

    I worked hard in real estate on the side and it paid off, but here's the facts, when my income was at its peak I mentioned above, I got Fed and State tax returns of $5,000 to $6,000 every year, Tax rates favored me while I had the higher income with a small LLC business and I never reached the top 1%, when my income was at $100,000 in the 90's I was far more able to pay out $5,000 to $6,000 in taxes then, than I was at $30,000 with two kids back in the early 80's and paying those amounts in taxes and only getting a few hundred in tax returns.

    Personally I have no complaints, but there are a lot of loop holes for the higher incomed that the lower income levels don't have the privilege of using to avoid taxes. From friends of mine who've made several times more than I did, I've learned that they have more and more ways of avoiding taxes. That does need to be fixed, just as Buffet suggests, why should I for instance have had to pay more out when at a lower income than I did with a higher income?.

    We in the US have been very fortunate up until this deep recession, with frugality we could live very pleasantly with a little effort, and still have more than most in this world. Unfortunately now though, with so few jobs there are many who truely are up 'shit creek with no paddle' because there aren't enough jobs for those wanting and needing to work.

    I think this is the biggest beef against the system and the top incomed people because they are seen as making business decisions and getting richer from them, that took jobs away from many among the American masses and brought them to their dire jobless situations. When masses of people are jobless and hurting they'll lash out in the direction that appears most to blame, and we all have to admit that our system has allowed the purchase of policy and legislation that took the jobs away from Americans and at the same time limited the taxes for the very wealthy, so now the top few percentage of wealth holders have squeezed out many of the masses and left them with nowhere to go for work, all the while the 1% are getting richer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 1:17 AM GMT
    Mallard_Fillmore.20111006_small.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 2:21 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    realifedad said limited the taxes for the very wealthy, so now the top few percentage of wealth holders have squeezed out many of the masses and left them with nowhere to go for work, all the while the 1% are getting richer.


    Are you targeting the top 1% of earners, or the top 1% based on their net worth?




    Not targeting SB, just giving those hell in the 1% or more, who have lobbied and payed for policies and legislation favoring themselves and their Corps. to reduce their support of the structures enabling them to profit and to take jobs overseas thereby cutting workers here. The bottom line aparently being their only purpose for existence, regardless of the workers who after all make the corporations existence possible in the first place.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 2:55 AM GMT
    Just three years ago I was just above poverty level. According to that chart Southbeach posted, looks like I'm in the 5% now. With business growing at the exponential rate it has been, looks like I could be in that 1% within the next one to two years. When I get there, I certainly won't mind paying my fair share of taxes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 3:57 AM GMT
    And yet he's willing to pay more to help out people he doesn't even know? Why? It's called compassion. It's called understanding. It's called not being a greedy douche who's only concern is for what he can gain, rather than what he can help create...a better place for everyone, not just himself.

    Thank you Southbeach, and I say this with all seriousness, thank you for showing me a little more and a little more every now and again, about the kind of selfish, greedy people who have helped corrupt and destroy this country. The real battle isn't against the 1% - it's against those who would rather hold their fellow American's down, rather than offer them a hand to help them get up off their feet.

    #99%Compassion



    southbeach1500 said
    Scruffypup saidJust three years ago I was just above poverty level. According to that chart Southbeach posted, looks like I'm in the 5% now. With business growing at the exponential rate it has been, looks like I could be in that 1% within the next one to two years. When I get there, I certainly won't mind paying my fair share of taxes.


    You already pay more than your fair share of taxes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 3:57 AM GMT
    And yet he's willing to pay more to help out people he doesn't even know? Why? It's called compassion. It's called understanding. It's called not being a greedy douche who's only concern is for what he can gain, rather than what he can help create...a better place for everyone, not just himself.

    Thank you Southbeach, and I say this with all seriousness, thank you for showing me a little more and a little more every now and again, about the kind of selfish, greedy people who have helped corrupt and destroy this country. The real battle isn't against the 1% - it's against those who would rather hold their fellow American's down, rather than offer them a hand to help them get up off their feet.

    #99%Compassion



    southbeach1500 said
    Scruffypup saidJust three years ago I was just above poverty level. According to that chart Southbeach posted, looks like I'm in the 5% now. With business growing at the exponential rate it has been, looks like I could be in that 1% within the next one to two years. When I get there, I certainly won't mind paying my fair share of taxes.


    You already pay more than your fair share of taxes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 5:52 AM GMT
    jpBITCHva said
    riddler78 said
    jpBITCHva saidSolution: pay them more.


    The basic problem with your response: your world view that people get paid - people don't earn.

    You don't really want to have the conversation about whether what people get paid is the correct market equivalent of what their value is, because it is one you'll lose.

    The "value" of different types of labor is not intrinsic. In fact, it is nearly arbitrary, which is why CEOs 25 years ago were considered fairly-paid at 10% of today's levels. It is also why other western countries pay teachers a great deal more than we do. If labor had a simple, easily-calculated value, all free-market countries would pay each profession relatively the same as we do. But they don't. This also leads to the discussion you Hayek-lovers never want to hear, viz. that the "free" market is a fiction anyway. But that's for another time.


    Thanks, jp, for saving me the trouble of correcting every erroneous statement on this thread. I was busy tonight. ;)
  • dancedancekj

    Posts: 1761

    Oct 13, 2011 5:55 AM GMT
    jpBITCHva said
    riddler78 said
    jpBITCHva saidSolution: pay them more.


    The basic problem with your response: your world view that people get paid - people don't earn.

    You don't really want to have the conversation about whether what people get paid is the correct market equivalent of what their value is, because it is one you'll lose.

    The "value" of different types of labor is not intrinsic. In fact, it is nearly arbitrary, which is why CEOs 25 years ago were considered fairly-paid at 10% of today's levels. It is also why other western countries pay teachers a great deal more than we do. If labor had a simple, easily-calculated value, all free-market countries would pay each profession relatively the same as we do. But they don't. This also leads to the discussion you Hayek-lovers never want to hear, viz. that the "free" market is a fiction anyway. But that's for another time.


    Heh. Why exactly do grown men in tight uniforms swatting and kicking balls get paid hundreds of times more than a heart surgeon does? Why does an attractive celebrity make hundreds of thousands more dollars than an elementary school teacher or professor?
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Oct 13, 2011 10:14 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    jpBITCHva said
    riddler78 said
    jpBITCHva saidSolution: pay them more.


    The basic problem with your response: your world view that people get paid - people don't earn.

    You don't really want to have the conversation about whether what people get paid is the correct market equivalent of what their value is, because it is one you'll lose.

    The "value" of different types of labor is not intrinsic. In fact, it is nearly arbitrary, which is why CEOs 25 years ago were considered fairly-paid at 10% of today's levels. It is also why other western countries pay teachers a great deal more than we do. If labor had a simple, easily-calculated value, all free-market countries would pay each profession relatively the same as we do. But they don't. This also leads to the discussion you Hayek-lovers never want to hear, viz. that the "free" market is a fiction anyway. But that's for another time.


    Thanks, jp, for saving me the trouble of correcting every erroneous statement on this thread. I was busy tonight. ;)



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

    Oct 13, 2011 10:47 AM GMT
    rnch said
    Christian73 said
    jpBITCHva said
    riddler78 said
    jpBITCHva saidSolution: pay them more.


    The basic problem with your response: your world view that people get paid - people don't earn.

    You don't really want to have the conversation about whether what people get paid is the correct market equivalent of what their value is, because it is one you'll lose.

    The "value" of different types of labor is not intrinsic. In fact, it is nearly arbitrary, which is why CEOs 25 years ago were considered fairly-paid at 10% of today's levels. It is also why other western countries pay teachers a great deal more than we do. If labor had a simple, easily-calculated value, all free-market countries would pay each profession relatively the same as we do. But they don't. This also leads to the discussion you Hayek-lovers never want to hear, viz. that the "free" market is a fiction anyway. But that's for another time.


    Thanks, jp, for saving me the trouble of correcting every erroneous statement on this thread. I was busy tonight. ;)


    icon_idea.gif

    Just curious, have you ever made a substantive comment yourself, or do you just respond with snide comments to SB and emoticons when you agree? Perfect example of flotsam and jetsam, why unlimited data plans are best for nothing messages that only quote what those actually in the game have written.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 12:56 PM GMT
    No, but me and my bf are both pretty up there (top 10%?).

    We still believe the rich can handle a higher tax burden, a la the Clinton years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 12:57 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    BCSwimmer saidI have seen a number of members argue against the general premise of taxing the ultra rich their fair share. Even Warren Buffet, currently ranked the 3rd wealthiest person in the world, is calling for higher taxation on the super-wealthy (i.e. the 1% or ultra-rich) .

    This got me thinking are any of those guys on here who are arguing against equitable taxing of the super wealthy members of the 1% themself (or perhaps they are just shills for the elite)?


    First, check out this site, it's a fun calculator:

    http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/12/whats-your-us-income-ranking.html


    Second, I am in the top 1%


    Third, anyone earning $205,000 or more is in the top 1%.


    Fourth, you wrote "I have seen a number of members argue against the general premise of taxing the ultra rich their fair share."

    You may not be aware of this, but close to 50% of households in the USA pay ZERO in Federal income taxes, yet they receive the same access to Federal government services as the "top 1%" do.

    In fact, many of the 50% of households that pay ZERO in Federal income taxes receive services from the Federal government that the "top 1%" are prohibited from receiving.

    Most of the 50% of households paying ZERO in Federal income taxes do in fact have income.

    Due to these facts, and my own moral compass, it appears that the top 1% is paying more than their fair share and there's a huge segment of the population not paying their "fair share" at all.




    Well by that criteria I am in the top 1%?, that's nuts...I always think of myself as kind of poor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 2:09 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    southbeach1500 said
    BCSwimmer saidI have seen a number of members argue against the general premise of taxing the ultra rich their fair share. Even Warren Buffet, currently ranked the 3rd wealthiest person in the world, is calling for higher taxation on the super-wealthy (i.e. the 1% or ultra-rich) .

    This got me thinking are any of those guys on here who are arguing against equitable taxing of the super wealthy members of the 1% themself (or perhaps they are just shills for the elite)?


    First, check out this site, it's a fun calculator:

    http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/12/whats-your-us-income-ranking.html


    Second, I am in the top 1%


    Third, anyone earning $205,000 or more is in the top 1%.


    Fourth, you wrote "I have seen a number of members argue against the general premise of taxing the ultra rich their fair share."

    You may not be aware of this, but close to 50% of households in the USA pay ZERO in Federal income taxes, yet they receive the same access to Federal government services as the "top 1%" do.

    In fact, many of the 50% of households that pay ZERO in Federal income taxes receive services from the Federal government that the "top 1%" are prohibited from receiving.

    Most of the 50% of households paying ZERO in Federal income taxes do in fact have income.

    Due to these facts, and my own moral compass, it appears that the top 1% is paying more than their fair share and there's a huge segment of the population not paying their "fair share" at all.




    Well by that criteria I am in the top 1%?, that's nuts...I always think of myself as kind of poor.


    Odd that, because your posts are so contemptuous of the poor. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 2:14 PM GMT
    Upper_Cdn said
    mocktwinkie said
    southbeach1500 said
    BCSwimmer saidI have seen a number of members argue against the general premise of taxing the ultra rich their fair share. Even Warren Buffet, currently ranked the 3rd wealthiest person in the world, is calling for higher taxation on the super-wealthy (i.e. the 1% or ultra-rich) .

    This got me thinking are any of those guys on here who are arguing against equitable taxing of the super wealthy members of the 1% themself (or perhaps they are just shills for the elite)?


    First, check out this site, it's a fun calculator:

    http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2010/12/whats-your-us-income-ranking.html


    Second, I am in the top 1%


    Third, anyone earning $205,000 or more is in the top 1%.


    Fourth, you wrote "I have seen a number of members argue against the general premise of taxing the ultra rich their fair share."

    You may not be aware of this, but close to 50% of households in the USA pay ZERO in Federal income taxes, yet they receive the same access to Federal government services as the "top 1%" do.

    In fact, many of the 50% of households that pay ZERO in Federal income taxes receive services from the Federal government that the "top 1%" are prohibited from receiving.

    Most of the 50% of households paying ZERO in Federal income taxes do in fact have income.

    Due to these facts, and my own moral compass, it appears that the top 1% is paying more than their fair share and there's a huge segment of the population not paying their "fair share" at all.




    Well by that criteria I am in the top 1%?, that's nuts...I always think of myself as kind of poor.


    Odd that, because your posts are so contemptuous of the poor. icon_lol.gif


    Being in favor of policies that enable and encourage the poor to be able to move up the ladder is "contemptuous of the poor"? When did that ever become the case? I want opportunity for everyone, especially the poor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 2:25 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said I want opportunity for everyone, especially the poor.


    Those words will haunt you. icon_lol.gif

    you will see those words quoted back at you often , asking how you reconcile that with with something you have posted that clearly favours one group over another.


    that is a promise.

    icon_biggrin.gif