65% favor taxing wealthy, are Pubs suicidal?

[Stephanie]

If 65% wanted to enslave the remaining 35% would that make it alright?

Would you go along with it?

they would if that's what their Dear Leader wanted..

such sheep

 

[blackhawk]

Public Support for Tax Increases Is a Myth

Ten bucks says he won't read it.

Wow. So two different polls, taken at different times, asking different questions, both offer different outcomes/results. Wow, that's just groundbreaking. The arguments will never be the same.

Swing, and a miss.

It appears that the entire response went over your head.

Not surprising.

Try this. How can anyone say that a poll shows that the American people want more taxes on the rich when they aren't even informed of what the current tax rate is, or that the taxes paid now exceed what the American people deem as 'fair'.

Any clearer for you?

BTW....that was not a miss. Its sailing out of the ball park.

The majority will always support taxing someone else. Whats the old saying the party that takes from Peter to give to Paul will always have the support of Paul?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Taxes, starting next year, are going to be thicker than a summer July evening caddis hatch on the Madison River in Montana.

 

[Stephanie]

Anyone notice how all the left now love the Bush tax cuts because Obama wants to KEEP some of them?

REMEMBER how they said the Bush tax cuts should EXPIRE, THEY WERE ONLY FOR THE RICH..they cost too much, blaa blaa blaa

boy oh boy watching them twist in the wind now

 

[francoHFW]

The richest 1% have tripled their wealth under voodoo, gotten 93% of the growth the last 4 years, whike the nonrich and the country are slowly ruined.

The dupes are totally brainwashed on here. A 4% rise, and they're talking communism. Ignorant idiocy...

 

[DiamondDave]

The richest 1% have tripled their wealth under voodoo, gotten 93% of the growth the last 4 years, whike the nonrich and the country are slowly ruined.

The dupes are totally brainwashed on here. A 4% rise, and they're talking communism. Ignorant idiocy...

So you are all for screaming for your freedom, while you wish to limit it for others... got it

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't favor it but go ahead and do it. Watch the rich do as Google CEO and big support of obama send millions offshore or pay dividends for 2013 in 2012 to avoid paying higher taxes.

 

[francoHFW]

Freedom, Marxism? You're fegging brainwashed- let the richest pay a little more like their fair share- they're bloated, the rest are ruined, and you're chumps, PERIOD. LOL

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Zh1bveXc8rA/SuddUhLWUaI/AAAAAAAAA7M/iU2gefk317M/s1600-h/Clipboard01.jpg
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-c...lity-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start

 

[lovemymutts]

I don't favor it but go ahead and do it. Watch the rich do as Google CEO and big support of obama send millions offshore or pay dividends for 2013 in 2012 to avoid paying higher taxes.

If you think that the practice of offshore accounts for the rich is something NEW brought on by President Obama.I have a bridge to sell you real cheap. Percentage paid by the rich is at a ALL time low.
91% in the 50's wow there were still rich, 70% + in 60's and 70's wow still rich people and they still invested.Geeze this shit gets old.

 

[mjollnir]

Public Support for Tax Increases Is a Myth

Ten bucks says he won't read it.

Wow. So two different polls, taken at different times, asking different questions, both offer different outcomes/results. Wow, that's just groundbreaking. The arguments will never be the same.

Swing, and a miss.

It appears that the entire response went over your head.

Not surprising.

Try this. How can anyone say that a poll shows that the American people want more taxes on the rich when they aren't even informed of what the current tax rate is, or that the taxes paid now exceed what the American people deem as 'fair'.

Any clearer for you?

BTW....that was not a miss. Its sailing out of the ball park.

No, it appears you slept through the part in 6th grade math where they told you not to compare apples to oranges.

Let's try and have you be a little less intellectually dishonest, eh Cindy?

 

[Cammmpbell]

Wow. So two different polls, taken at different times, asking different questions, both offer different outcomes/results. Wow, that's just groundbreaking. The arguments will never be the same.

Swing, and a miss.

It appears that the entire response went over your head.

Not surprising.

Try this. How can anyone say that a poll shows that the American people want more taxes on the rich when they aren't even informed of what the current tax rate is, or that the taxes paid now exceed what the American people deem as 'fair'.

Any clearer for you?

BTW....that was not a miss. Its sailing out of the ball park.

The majority will always support taxing someone else. Whats the old saying the party that takes from Peter to give to Paul will always have the support of Paul?

Are you foolish?

Tax rates are almost as low as they were under Reagan and his "Trickle Down"...which never worked. If the Republican party doesn't go out of their way to reclaim some ordinary voters they are history:

 

[Avatar4321]

No. We aren't suicidal. We still oppose increasing taxes on anyone.

 

[blackhawk]

It appears that the entire response went over your head.

Not surprising.

Try this. How can anyone say that a poll shows that the American people want more taxes on the rich when they aren't even informed of what the current tax rate is, or that the taxes paid now exceed what the American people deem as 'fair'.

Any clearer for you?

BTW....that was not a miss. Its sailing out of the ball park.

The majority will always support taxing someone else. Whats the old saying the party that takes from Peter to give to Paul will always have the support of Paul?

Are you foolish?

Tax rates are almost as low as they were under Reagan and his "Trickle Down"...which never worked. If the Republican party doesn't go out of their way to reclaim some ordinary voters they are history:

Never worked huh I guess that explains that big economic boom we had in the 80's.

 

[Cammmpbell]

The majority will always support taxing someone else. Whats the old saying the party that takes from Peter to give to Paul will always have the support of Paul?

Are you foolish?

Tax rates are almost as low as they were under Reagan and his "Trickle Down"...which never worked. If the Republican party doesn't go out of their way to reclaim some ordinary voters they are history:

Never worked huh I guess that explains that big economic boom we had in the 80's.

Economic boom? Reagan emptied the state mental hospitals and welfare facilities onto the streets and the homeless reached record numbers. He and GHW Bush quadrupled the national debt and in Jan. 1993 left a higher unemployment number than Jimmy Carter left when he finished. The fact is that Reagan was the first president to cut taxes to record low levels, not cut spending a dime and ruin the labor unions when he fired PATCO.

You want economic boom? One place to look. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, generated 22 million new jobs, balanced the annual budget and actually generated $400 billion of surplus. He had straightened out the Reagan/Bush41 mess and had the entire debt on schedule to be paid off by now. Then along came George.

 

[francoHFW]

So, how much do the 1% and corps ACTUALY pay in all taxes? 17% and 12%, dupes...

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = PrudentBear
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States--December 6, 2012
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

 

[Cammmpbell]

So, how much do the 1% and corps ACTUALY pay in all taxes? 17% and 12%, dupes...

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = PrudentBear
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States--December 6, 2012
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Well.....you nailed that:

 

[SniperFire]

So, how much do the 1% and corps ACTUALY pay in all taxes? 17% and 12%, dupes...

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = PrudentBear
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States--December 6, 2012
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Well.....you nailed that:

yawn.


Still pretending that 30 year post WW2 boom wasn't an anomaly, never to be repeated unless the industries of everyone else in the world get bombed out but us?

LOL

Granddaddy's machine tool job - where he slept half of his shift and scolded the new hires for producing too much and making them look bad - is gone forever.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Freedom, Marxism? You're fegging brainwashed- let the richest pay a little more like their fair share- they're bloated, the rest are ruined, and you're chumps, PERIOD. LOL

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = PrudentBear
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States--December 6, 2012
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

All of that is true, but your 'proposal' won't fix the problem. That's what we've been trying to tell you. Whatever tax you add to 'the rich' and 'the corporations' is going to be paid by US, one way or the other. The rich will move their money out of the country, and the corporations will just pass the cost on to the consumer.

The toothpaste got out of the tube when we let bad trade deals and corporate greed turn us from a producer to a consumer economy.

I don't think we're going to get it back in there...

 

[BallsBrunswick]

It's not that they're suicidal. It's that the intelligent ones are controlled by the uber-wealthy who are trying to destroy our society for their own benefit and the brain dead ones (like the ones we see on here everyday) are useful idiots who will fight and parrot anything they're told by their superiors.

 

[GuyPinestra]

It appears that the entire response went over your head.

Not surprising.

Try this. How can anyone say that a poll shows that the American people want more taxes on the rich when they aren't even informed of what the current tax rate is, or that the taxes paid now exceed what the American people deem as 'fair'.

Any clearer for you?

BTW....that was not a miss. Its sailing out of the ball park.

The majority will always support taxing someone else. Whats the old saying the party that takes from Peter to give to Paul will always have the support of Paul?

Are you foolish?

Tax rates are almost as low as they were under Reagan and his "Trickle Down"...which never worked. If the Republican party doesn't go out of their way to reclaim some ordinary voters they are history:

And yet those lower rates are delivering a lot more real dollars.