The rich are waging class warfare on the poor

[bone]

Quote from epiktetos:

Second, what eats up Federal Funds in these red states are not the poor but the older more conservative retirees who tend to vote Republican.

So, you are going to complain about SS benefits getting paid out to retirees who actually paid INTO the system at some point in time, but you remain silent about generations of welfare families, existing illegals currently collecting entitlements like Food Stamps and educational subsidies - what do you believe the prospect of the Dream Act would be for entitlement pay-outs ? Millions of families and their immediate relatives in Mexico becoming instantly qualified for benefits ? Adults with third grade educations and no prospects for anything more advanced than manual labor continuing to accept cash for labor and then joining the entitlement train ?

BTW, where do you think those blue state retirees move to ? How many retiree checks from the NorthEast get mailed to a SunBelt state (hint, it has alot to do with cost-of-living) ?

 

[epiktetos]

Quote from bone:

So, you are going to complain about SS benefits getting paid out to retirees who actually paid INTO the system at some point in time, but you remain silent about generations of welfare families, existing illegals currently collecting entitlements like Food Stamps and educational subsidies - what do you believe the prospect of the Dream Act would be for entitlement pay-outs ? Millions of families and their immediate relatives in Mexico becoming instantly qualified for benefits ? Adults with third grade educations and no prospects for anything more advanced than manual labor continuing to accept cash for labor and then joining the entitlement train ?

BTW, where do you think those blue state retirees move to ? How many retiree checks from the NorthEast get mailed to a SunBelt state (hint, it has alot to do with cost-of-living) ?

Actually I didn't mention SS at all, I talked about Medicare which is huge drain on the federal resources. And I oppose the DREAM act, so not sure what you are getting excited about.

 

[failed_trad3r]

Quote from bone:

47 % of US Adults pay no Federal Income Tax - that is an IRS published fact. So whom are you referring to ?

For people who pay no tax (bottom 20%?), it's interesting the bottom 20% lost 30% share of pie over 30 years. If right now they aren't paying taxes, they were paying negative taxes in 1980?

 

[Random.Capital]

It's not an established "fact" at all, it's a think tank statistical manipulation.

 

[Eddiefl]

Quote from peilthetraveler:

They only want to play video games, look at porn and go get high. This is why the income gap is spreading.

Hey what i do on Saturday nights is my business buddy..!!!



EF

 

[failed_trad3r]

Quote from MKTrader:

Let's play fair. The one who REALLY went out of his way promising jobs was Obama with his record-breaking Spedulous. Remember, the unemployment rate would never go above 8%? Instead, it's remained naggingly above 8% since that time.

With Bush, the main problems were all the spending--two wars, Medicare Part D (what a convervative idea, George!), etc. We have no way of knowing what the tax cuts would've done ceteris paribus.

Indeed, you can't promise jobs. Jobs is linked to booms and busts and presidents don't have that much influence on it. But when you add 3 trillion to the national debt over 8 years by cutting taxes based on the promise of creating jobs, that's definately a load of crap.

So what about Obama? I agree Obama is doing stimulus spending on the guise of creating jobs, its a load of crap also, he just trying inflate GDP numbers by keeping government spending high.

Quote from bone:

I don't see it in terms of Red versus Blue - I see it in terms of fundamental fairness. The fact of the matter is that the Dems and the Repubs buy off their respective constituents with tax breaks and tax loopholes - both parties are whores in that respect. The Democratic Party had complete control of all three branches of the Federal government including at one point a supermajority. The Dems could have changed tax rates, tax deductions, loopholes, whatever they wanted. If tax rates are the Dems number one hotbutton issue - why did they do nothing about it when they had complete and unchallenged power to do so ? BTW, supermajority means veto-proof.

fundamental fairness? are you a communist, trying to make society fair? fair is in the eye of the beholder and the eye of the society. is it fair people who get born into a rich mans family get many chances on succeeding compared to this starving african?
After long deliberation I have found sometimes you have to skip "fairness" and go with what works. Just like how capitalism works, I think progressive tax works better than flat tax. Even if it's not "fair". Besides, the rich quadrupled their income in 30 years, even with a progressive tax. Seems like it's not that big of a deal.

 

[bone]

Quote from failed_trad3r:

For people who pay no tax (bottom 20%?), it's interesting the bottom 20% lost 30% share of pie over 30 years. If right now they aren't paying taxes, they were paying negative taxes in 1980?

Fact: 47 % of American Households pay NO federal income tax

Fact: the 'working poor' actually get a tax 'refund' check (seriously) without paying income tax - it's called the Earned Income Tax Credit (EIC). A working family with combined income $50K and under is not going to pay federal income tax - in fact, they are going to get a 'refund check'. Working families with income between $50K to $100K already pay a very low federal rates due to itemized deductions for children and education.

The bottom line is that any household with above $100K per year in gross income is responsible for shouldering just about all of the federal income tax that comes into the Treasury. If you think about that, in California or New York a couple who files jointly - maybe a nurse and a firefighter, are considered 'rich' top-tier marginal rate taxpayers. With state and local income taxes they are working over half the year for free - to support the government apparatus. Sound fair ?

From Forbes:

The current top federal rate of 35% is scheduled to rise to 39.6% in 2013 (plus one-to-two points from the phase-out of itemized deductions for singles making above $200,000 and couples earning above $250,000). The payroll tax is 12.4% for Social Security (capped at $106,000), and 2.9% for Medicare (no income cap). While the payroll tax is theoretically split between employers and employees, the employers' share is ultimately shifted to workers in the form of lower wages.

But there are also state income taxes that need to be kept in mind. They contribute to the burden. The top state personal rate in California, for example, is now about 10.5%. Thus the marginal tax rate paid on wages combining all these taxes is 44.1%. (This is a net figure because state income taxes paid are deducted from federal income.)

So, for a family in high-cost California taxed at the top federal rate, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2013, the 0.9% increase in payroll taxes to fund ObamaCare, and the president's proposal to eventually uncap Social Security payroll taxes would lift its combined marginal tax rate to a stunning 58.4%.

 

[arbs-r-us]

Quote from failed_trad3r:

Top 1% had income rise by 125% share of pie since 1980. Bottom 20% had income drop 30% share of pie

The rich are stealing money from the poor, that much is certain.
:eek: :eek: :eek:
Im shocked

I guess this coming from someone with the handle "failed trader" is appropriate.....

 

[failed_trad3r]

Quote from bone:

[/i] [/B]

If paying no Federal income tax is hurting the USA economy or budget or whatever, how come income inequality is rising? Shouldn't this be falling, since paying less taxes results in more money for the poor?

Unless there is something else going on. I suspect you are too focused on federal income tax. I have a feeling other taxes, like sales taxes and alot of other taxes I won't mention, lead to the poor shouldering more tax burden than it appears. Federal income tax sure isn't the only important tax.

The USA has a progressive tax system, but it doesn't seem like it's progressive enough.:eek: :eek: :eek:

 

[bone]

Quote from failed_trad3r:

The USA has a progressive tax system, but it doesn't seem like it's progressive enough.

You are certainly correct in that anyone walking into a store to buy something is going to pay state and local sales tax. There is also a federal tax on gasoline. Also, property owners will pay some sort of annual tax on that real estate.

You need to keep in mind that the 'working poor' (and most others for that matter) are employed by a small business owner. There is actually a great deal of truth in the notion that higher individual tax rates for the top tier kills small business. Let me explain why:

Almost all small business owners have to report their income on their individual (or married filing jointly) 1040 federal income tax returns. LLC, LLP, does not matter one iota.

Even if you are part owner of a medium size business with several partners, that K-1 income gets reported as a line item directly on your 1040.

Let's say you're a restaurant owner. You employ ten people - your payroll is let's say $350K annually. Building lease, inventory, supplies, advertising, taxes, licenses etc. another $700K. You have to cover a $1M nut before you make dollar one. If you are LUCKY maybe you had $125K net income to report. If the government wants to take another 20 percent of your net income, you will have to cut 20 percent of your overhead - so in other words, in order to pay the Feds another $25K you are going to have to CUT $125K somewhere. So, to pay the Feds, you are going to impact the lives of many - you are going to fire three employees, you are going to fire the landscaper, the advertiser, the printing firm. In the final analysis, the Feds killed the golden goose to get just one more egg.

The Federal government has nothing to distribute without free enterprise.