|
|
|
|
|
AnalogKid (2/18/2010)Kestrel: And you have to remember, the last bunch of Republicans who ran the country were NOT TRUE conservatives , That I agree with. They are becoming an endagered species in Washington which has led to the spirited tea parties.
The teaparties have been co-opted by Republicans intent on using the anger against the government to defeat Democrats. It's the same thing they did with the radical religious right crowd at the end of the Clinton administration. If you think it's really a grassroots movement, you need to dig deeper, particularly into the funding - follow the money. Also, the radicals and racists that have joined and are advocating violence will have to be denounced loudly and often by the people within the movement if they are to get anywhere with the general public. When you have a speaker at the Tea Party convention publicly calling for the hanging of a Senator, you've got a problem.
Maybe when we have a SURPLUS again (like the one Bush inherited from Clinton), maybe THEN we can start talking about cutting taxes again. Right now, we've got to figure out how to increase the revenue enough to pay for what we need PLUS pay the bill left by the last administration. But we weren't at war when Bill Clinton was in office. This war has cost a s*** load of money.
Yes, and George Bush got the country into two wars, but instead of making any attempt to pay for it, he put it on the credit card. Then he borrowed even more money to keep handing out tax increases, most of which went to those in the top 2% income in the country.
Let's say you buy a business from someone, and the company has not only turned a good profit, but the people who you bought it from had managed to set aside a large amount of money - for things like upgrading computers, unexpected expenses, keeping the company running in the lean years. So, you come in and the first thing you do is hire your friends as managers, pay them a lot more than they would have made under the old management, and hire a bunch of contract workers. Then you go out and buy a huge new building, buy new computers and equipment, and give everyone at the top another raise. Your account has dwindled to nothing, now you're in the red, but your people at the top are happy, and you know your time there will be short anyway, so you don't care.
Now what's going out is far more than what's coming in. The time comes when you hand your job to someone else and it's not your problem anymore.
The new manager comes in, and it's up to him to straighten out the mess you made and get the company out of the red. So, he has to tighten the belt, make across the board pay cuts and layoffs at all levels of the corporate ladder (which pisses a LOT of people off). He still has contracts made by the last guy that he has to honor, even though the company is losing money on them. It takes years to straighten things out, and people get impatient. He's not popular with the people who can't see the big picture, but if he's lucky, he has people working for him that can ride out the rough times.
Patience really is a virtue.
You mentioned figuring out how to increase revenue to the federal government. Well sure if we pay more in taxes that might increase revenue but that increase will only be temporary. I'm quoting from memory of two years ago and don't remember the exact numbers but 10% of tax payers pay well over 75% of federal taxes. 5% pay about 50%. The top 1% pay over 30%. The top 10% earned less than 100k/year The top 5% earned 125k or more a year. The top 1% earned more than 300k/year. In these categories are the one's (for the most part) who own businesses and hire people. If their taxes are raised they will have less money. So in order to compensate for that loss in 'their' revenue they cut down on expenses (which is what all dems and reps should try). Such as buying new cars furniture vacations etc. Or they will raise the prices of their goods or services. Or they might cut down on employees. Another thing they do (which is what I sometimes do in my business) defer payments due them to keep them in a lower tax bracket. All of this results in less money in the economy and that results in less money being made by Americans and that means less revenue will go to the government. That's why we need a flat rate tax for everyone. Everyone pays the same rate if they're making 25k or 250k. If memory servers Aruba has lowered their flat tax because that system greatly increased government revenue. You can't get something for nothing, and it's wrong to keep trying. Now you're sounding like a Reagan conservative! *kiss
WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--the lowest rate paid by the richest 400 during the 15-year period covered by the IRS statistics. The average federal tax bite on the top 400 was 30% in 1995 and 23% in 2002.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/29/irs-high-income-personal-finance-taxes_0129_wealthy_americans.html
And again, a flat tax won't help as long as we have loopholes. Close those loopholes, do away with the tax havens, and maybe we'd see some progress.
But, it's never going to happen - there are too many wealthy and powerful people who would fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.
And as far as Reagan...well, remember "trickle down economics"? At that time I was living at the level of those folks who got trickled on.
I'll post a new thread on that one.
Oh, and btw - what do you think your conservative friends would think about you posting kisses to a tree-hugging, yoga practicing, granola eating, organic gardening, southern progressive? *s*
Better watch it, you're gonna start rumors!
(Want me to start one for you? *w*)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WASHINGTON, D.C.--The 400 highest-earning taxpayers in the U.S. reported a record $105 billion in total adjusted gross income in 2006, but they paid just $18 billion in tax, new Internal Revenue Service figures show. That works out to an average federal income tax bite of 17%--
I do not question your source or what you posted. But we have to take a look at what this actually says. 17% of 105 billion in gross income was paid in taxes. The key word there is 'gross income' which makes this irrelevant. We don't pay taxes on gross income. On my farm my gross income every year is usually btween 200,000 and 300,000. But my net income might only be 15% of that. We pay taxes on only our NET income. Net income is how much is left after deductible expenses are taken out.
And again, a flat tax won't help as long as we have loopholes. Close those loopholes, do away with the tax havens, and maybe we'd see some progress.
What loopholes are you speaking of? Business expenses? If you own a house or apartment complex that you have rented out, all repairs and upkeep you pay for those homes are tax deductible. What tax havens do you speak of? Business expansions? Which are always good for the economy.
But, it's never going to happen - there are too many wealthy and powerful people who would fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo.
Not entirely true because we are losing our 179 deductions on expenses of capital investments. We were able to write off $250,000 a year but next year I think it'll be lowered to $100,000 and the next year down to $50,000.
And as far as Reagan...well, remember "trickle down economics"? At that time I was living at the level of those folks who got trickled on.
Trickle down economics. The democrats want Americans to think that it means giving to the rich and it will trickle down to the poor. It has nothing to do with 'giving' to the rich. That's what I am sick and tired of hearing. Tax cuts are not 'giving' to the rich as the dems want us to believe. But Trickle down economics is allowing more of the American people to keep more of THEIR money so that it will stay in the economy and businesses and people will thrive. We NEED the wealty in this country. The wealthy are the ones building new homes and in doing so hire contractors, carpenters, painters, plumbers, electricians, interiror decorators, buy new flooring and furniture etc for the new house. They buy new cars so that salesman/woman can earn their commission, trading off their used car so that someone in the middle class can buy it. They own businesses and the more successful their business the more people they hire and pay.
That's trckle down economics and it worked pretty damn good from the later 80s up until a few years ago when the economy began a downward slope. And that's another thing, in our free system the economy fluctuates all the time. There are good times and bad times. And remember, the president does not control our economy....that's what dictators do.
Now the more those wealthy are taxed the less of the above happens. The wealthy need the middle class and the poor. The poor and middle class need the wealthy. This is how a free enterprise system works. If you're against trickle down economics you are against what has made us a wealthy country. Do you want the government to distribute wealth? Remember what Obama has said? In his talk with Joe the Plumber he mad a mistake liberals sometimes do when they get comfortable....he told us what he really thinks...."that spreading the wealth is a good thing". And in another situation he said "its time to return the nation's wealth to it's rightful owners". I actually agree that spreading the wealth is good.......but through our free interprise system and NOT by way of the government.
Oh, and btw - what do you think your conservative friends would think about you posting kisses to a tree-hugging, yoga practicing, granola eating, organic gardening, southern progressive? *s*
Well I have dated a liberal before. We didn't talk politics a lot but when we did I was impressed with her knowledge of our government even though she was SO wrong! lol But man, she was a good kisser!
I still don't know what progressive is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Village, Village, Village, I'll type it slower this time for you lol.... smh
OK say for instance a total of $1 million was paid in taxes by 1000 people.
Of that $1 million
The top 1% of those 1000 people paid 30% of that million.
The top 5% of those 1000 people paid 50% of that million.
The top 10% of those 1000 people paid 75% of that million.
Leaving the bottom 90% of those 1000 people paying only 25% of that million.
So that means:
The top 10 people paid $300,000
The top 50 people (which includes the top 10 people) paid $500,000.
The top 100 people (which includes the top 10 and top 50 people) paid $750,000.
Which leaves the bottom 900 people who paid a total of $250,000.
Therefore since the top 100 people paid $750,000 and the bottom 900 people paid $250,000 that means all 1000 people and all $1 million is accounted for. Hope this helps.
Your math is a bit odd.
16% of the people paid 155% of the taxes?
This reminds me of a joke Rush Limbaugh played on his show about creative learning lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The teaparties have been co-opted by Republicans intent on using the anger against the government to defeat Democrats. It's the same thing they did with the radical religious right crowd at the end of the Clinton administration. If you think it's really a grassroots movement, you need to dig deeper, particularly into the funding - follow the money. Also, the radicals and racists that have joined and are advocating violence will have to be denounced loudly and often by the people within the movement if they are to get anywhere with the general public. When you have a speaker at the Tea Party convention publicly calling for the hanging of a Senator, you've got a problem.
I'm a registered republican and so are some of my friends. None of us have had the republcan party contact us nor any leading republican office contact us in hopes of drawing us and others to attend a tea party. They are not co-opted by 'the republicans' but by ordinary working American people like you and me. They are not only conservatives but independents and even some democrats who are mad as hell at our governement for losing touch with the American people. I consider it a grass roots movement just like those who supported Ross Perot or Jesse Ventura.
There's an interesting aspect of human nature that most all of us can relate to: Take any position you have on any event or subject and when you realize that you're not alone, that there are others (perhaps thousands) who feel the same way that you do it gives you the courage and motivation to come out. It creates an energy of it's own. And people feed off of that energy and they get pumped up and excited and enthused. An example of this kind of energy is the conspiricy theory of 9/11... or global warming.
That's what's happening. Trust me, it's not the republican party because some of our republican leaders are being targeted at these tea parties. Many republicans accross America (myself included) are angry at the republican party for leaving the basic principals of conservatism and abandoning it's base. Take John McCain for instance....he's an incumbant but now fighting another republican (probably a real republican) for his senate seat.
CNN and MSNBC are going to find those few radicals who make asses out of themselves at the tea parties. I wonder how much footage (little I'm sure) they showed of Arlen Spector when he had the deer in the headlights look on his face while facing the angry voters at his town hall meeting. The majority of the tea party goers are regular 'Joes and Janes' who've had enough of our government trying to take over more of our lives. The bail outs, the stimulus package and the push for government run health care......finally people spoke out and said enough is enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The top 1% of those 1000 people paid 30% of that million.
The top 5% of those 1000 people paid 50% of that million.
The top 10% of those 1000 people paid 75% of that million.
Leaving the bottom 90% of those 1000 people paying only 25% of that million.
That math is ever weirder than your original math.
Now you're at 180%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That math is ever weirder than your original math.
Now you're at 180%
I don't know how hard that is to understand. It's just math, man! What part don't you understand?
Maybe this is why a lot of democrats don't understand basic economics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sitting on the sidelines, watching this one is a laugh. When you add up anything...ANYTHING..you can't have the number higher than the total of 100%. Every post of the kid, has numbers well over 100%. Perhaps this is why the Republicans have dragged your country so far in to the red. It reminds me of while Bush was in office. They announced the country had a surplus of hundreds of billions of dollars, yet the nations debt, was in the trillions of dollars. Double talk for even an elementary student. You can bet your years wages, that if this were a person, a bank would point out the error and take all the money, demanding more. America is headed for bankruptcy on the fast track. Neither party has paid any attention to how much is owed, just how much it will spend. These threads all simply prove, that they, nor the people, care. In the end, the banks will cause the fall of the American system, not any terrorist group. America, is America's worst enemy.
If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true, is really true, there would be little hope of advance......
Orville Wright
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*just shakes my head*
Analog,
Draw them a picture. Obviously the blind will never see, no matter how you explain it, or how slowly you type.
Kind of reminds me of the saying:
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, Teach a man to fish and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sitting on the sidelines, watching this one is a laugh. When you add up anything...ANYTHING..you can't have the number higher than the total of 100%. Every post of the kid, has numbers well over 100%.
Unfortunately for you, AnswerMan and I are the ones laughing. Please explain to me how my math totals over 100%.
Village, where in the hell do you come up with my math showing that 16% paying 155% of the tax?
I'll try this one more time.
Class? Class?? Quiet please.....For an example I'll again use $1 million in taxes paid by 1000 people.
Remember that.
Now the 1000 people are broken down into brackets of, say highest earners to lowest earners.
The highest earning 1% are the wealthiest 10 people of that 1000.
The highest earning 5% are the wealthiest 50 people of that 1000.
The highest earning 10% are the wealthist 100 people of that 1000.
The highest earning 90% are the poorest 900 people of that 1000.
Contrary to your math this does not add up to 106%.
The only two brackets that stand completely alone are the 1% and the 90% brackets.
Thus the top 1% is IN the top 5%.
And the top 1% AND 5% are IN the top 10%. Which leaves 90% left.
So of that $1 million the highest earning 1% of people paid 30% of the tax or $300,000. That would mean the lower 99% paid $700,000. That's 100% of people and all of the million.
That means that if the top 5% paid $500,000 the the lower 95% also paid $500,000. That accounts for 100% of the people and all of the million.
And the top 10% paid $750,000 and the lower 90% paid $250,000.
Hope this make shift graph works:
1% --------X
^
5%---------X + XXXX
^ ^^^^
10%...........X + XXXX + XXXXX
^ ^^^^ ^^^^^
90%...........X + XXXX + XXXXX + (X x 80)
^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^
100%.........X + XXXX + XXXXX + (X x 80) + (X x 10)
Now Village and Pita if you guys can't figure out basic logical math it's not a good sign for you side. I really hope you're just messing with me. If you don't get it now I give up....this is too tiring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and you two think one plus one is seven. I think we can all say we know where you are coming from and that you have decided to be blinded by idiots who say they know what they are talking about, but the math is flawed in every sense of the word. Very much like your so called richest country in the world, being trillions of dollars in debt. The two do not go hand in hand. Enjoy going down the tubes if your country thinks as you do.
If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true, is really true, there would be little hope of advance......
Orville Wright
|
|
|
|