A breakdown of who is really paying taxes

[American Horse]

I think that's kinda the point. Why should they be different? There's no logical reason to tax labor and ingenuity more than luck.

Those who have earnings from investment don't have to invest. If they don't invest there will be less new jobs for those who need them for earning a living. People who have built up wealth don't have to put it at risk (luck of the marketplace) so to encourage risk taking they should be taxed less on those type earnings.

Listen to how stupid you sound, "people will stop wanting to make money if instead of making 1million dollars they instead my 900,000 dollars". Furthermore the rich can either invest money or spend money either way the money circulated in the economy; and in fact more spending would result in less speculation, and bubbles of which caused the last two recessions

You seem to think there is only one type of investor. You completely discount the wealthy elderly who are sensitive to risk. They are in stocks (real estate, rentals, investments in risk ventures; even corporate bonds) because sovereign bond yields are so low, and those investors are all up and down the scale. Some simple arithmetic applied to the 4,7 billion annual increases yield by raising cap gains from 15 to 30% will illustrate that. Get a clue; they (or some large proportion of them) may just decide to preserve wealth rather than risk it, I'm one of those people.

 

[BlindBoo]

To start with it matters not only who pays what, but what is paid by who
Income and capital gains are 2 totally different taxes, yet if Buffet as well as BHO had there way we would never know that

I think that's kinda the point. Why should they be different? There's no logical reason to tax labor and ingenuity more than luck.

Those who have earnings from investment don't have to invest. If they don't invest there will be less new jobs for those who need them for earning a living. People who have built up wealth don't have to put it at risk (luck of the marketplace) so to encourage risk taking they should be taxed less on those type earnings.

Short term investments are taxed at the regular rate. You're right they don't have to invest in risky stocks, they could put it in low risk/ low reward CD's or savings accounts.

 

[JRK]

Those who have earnings from investment don't have to invest. If they don't invest there will be less new jobs for those who need them for earning a living. People who have built up wealth don't have to put it at risk (luck of the marketplace) so to encourage risk taking they should be taxed less on those type earnings.

Listen to how stupid you sound, "people will stop wanting to make money if instead of making 1million dollars they instead my 900,000 dollars". Furthermore the rich can either invest money or spend money either way the money circulated in the economy; and in fact more spending would result in less speculation, and bubbles of which caused the last two recessions

You seem to think there is only one type of investor. You completely discount the wealthy elderly who are sensitive to risk. They are in stocks (real estate, rentals, investments in risk ventures; even corporate bonds) because sovereign bond yields are so low, and those investors are all up and down the scale. Some simple arithmetic applied to the 4,7 billion annual increases yield by raising cap gains from 15 to 30% will illustrate that. Get a clue; they (or some large proportion of them) may just decide to preserve wealth rather than risk it, I'm one of those people.

People who have never invested in the stock market have no idea how difficult it really is. Adding 15% to the tax bracket that invests in capital to gain wealth is a job killing move. Think of the empty houses that have been bought up by people who have used that as an investment, until those houses are all bought up the housing crises will go on and on. Investing in an idea, a company. To punish those people would be crazy. And your point about the retired is also a very good one
Millions are investing in the stock market after retirement to supplement there income, to buy that travel trailer, boat, new set of golf clubs
Take that 15% away and your going to impact the GDP in a big way

 

[Flopper]

To start with it matters not only who pays what, but what is paid by who
Income and capital gains are 2 totally different taxes, yet if Buffet as well as BHO had there way we would never know that

I think that's kinda the point. Why should they be different? There's no logical reason to tax labor and ingenuity more than luck.

Maybe I do not understand your thread
To invest capital to make gains, at some point in time that wealth has been taxed as income
To tax that wealth again makes no sense, at least not the same income is taxed

Whats the incentive?

To create jobs we must have investment

To create jobs, we need the right kind of investments. All investments help to create some jobs. However, some investments create a lot more than others. Investments in collectibles, precious metals, and commodities do little to create jobs. Overseas investments create jobs but primarily in other countries. Investments in treasury bills just finance the national debt.

IMHO, stock and bond investments in US corporation, particularly initial public offerings and secondary offerings where the proceeds go directly to the company, are the best investments for creating jobs. If we are to provide tax incentives for any investments, we should do so for these investments.

 

[JRK]

I think that's kinda the point. Why should they be different? There's no logical reason to tax labor and ingenuity more than luck.

Maybe I do not understand your thread
To invest capital to make gains, at some point in time that wealth has been taxed as income
To tax that wealth again makes no sense, at least not the same income is taxed

Whats the incentive?

To create jobs we must have investment

To create jobs, we need the right kind of investments. All investments help to create some jobs. However, some investments create a lot more than others. Investments in collectibles, precious metals, and commodities do little to create jobs. Overseas investments create jobs but primarily in other countries. Investments in treasury bills just finance the national debt.

IMHO, stock and bond investments in US corporation, particularly initial public offerings and secondary offerings where the proceeds go directly to the company, are the best investments for creating jobs. If we are to provide tax incentives for any investments, we should do so for these investments.

I have been a staunch supporter for tax policy that promotes growth in the exact way you describe
Dont punish those who invest in gold, or a Painting of some value, but for sure reward those who invest in job creating events, some as you have described
You get it

 

[clevergirl]

There are three ways to argue that capital gains are double taxed (or simply overtaxed). All three are real and cannot be denied by Democrats.

(1) All taxation of saving is a form of double taxation. This observation is nothing new to economists. For example, in 1848 the British philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill wrote: "Unless . . . savings are exempt from tax, the contributors are taxed twice on what they save, and only once on what they spend." Since then, economists have often said things like "income from saving is taxed twice." This is another way of saying an income tax is biased against saving -- a bias not shared by a consumption tax.

Jesus. If we follow your logic me getting taxed on my regular income next year would be double taxation because i was taxed on my income last year.

(2) Profits giving rise to capital gain on equities have already been subject to corporate tax. There is no good economic justification for the corporate tax. It is unfair and inefficient to tax profits first with the corporate tax and then again with an individual tax either on dividends or capital gains.

I see so according to you income taxes are double taxed because people are employed by corporations

(3) Inflationary gains are not real income and should not be subject to tax. The relative stability of the price level over the past three decades has greatly reduced concerns about the highly detrimental effects of inflation on the operation of the income tax. But even at low levels, inflation overstates returns to capital. One manifestation of this problem is the taxation of inflationary gains as if they represented appreciation in real value.

Are you to stupid to realize that when you buy something every year that goes of its value declines? So what you are saying is that you really just want inflation taxes to fall only on the poor and not the rich

PLz come back when you are able to think beyond a 1st grade leve

Please respond when your sentences are written correctly and sound intelligent.

These stats are from the IRS. The explanation(s) from economists.

 

[starcraftzzz]

There are three ways to argue that capital gains are double taxed (or simply overtaxed). All three are real and cannot be denied by Democrats.

(1) All taxation of saving is a form of double taxation. This observation is nothing new to economists. For example, in 1848 the British philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill wrote: "Unless . . . savings are exempt from tax, the contributors are taxed twice on what they save, and only once on what they spend." Since then, economists have often said things like "income from saving is taxed twice." This is another way of saying an income tax is biased against saving -- a bias not shared by a consumption tax.

Jesus. If we follow your logic me getting taxed on my regular income next year would be double taxation because i was taxed on my income last year.

I see so according to you income taxes are double taxed because people are employed by corporations

(3) Inflationary gains are not real income and should not be subject to tax. The relative stability of the price level over the past three decades has greatly reduced concerns about the highly detrimental effects of inflation on the operation of the income tax. But even at low levels, inflation overstates returns to capital. One manifestation of this problem is the taxation of inflationary gains as if they represented appreciation in real value.

Are you to stupid to realize that when you buy something every year that goes of its value declines? So what you are saying is that you really just want inflation taxes to fall only on the poor and not the rich

PLz come back when you are able to think beyond a 1st grade leve

Please respond when your sentences are written correctly and sound intelligent.

These stats are from the IRS. The explanation(s) from economists.

I see so you didnt take my advice

 

[starcraftzzz]

Those who have earnings from investment don't have to invest. If they don't invest there will be less new jobs for those who need them for earning a living. People who have built up wealth don't have to put it at risk (luck of the marketplace) so to encourage risk taking they should be taxed less on those type earnings.

Listen to how stupid you sound, "people will stop wanting to make money if instead of making 1million dollars they instead my 900,000 dollars". Furthermore the rich can either invest money or spend money either way the money circulated in the economy; and in fact more spending would result in less speculation, and bubbles of which caused the last two recessions

You seem to think there is only one type of investor. You completely discount the wealthy elderly who are sensitive to risk. They are in stocks (real estate, rentals, investments in risk ventures; even corporate bonds) because sovereign bond yields are so low, and those investors are all up and down the scale. Some simple arithmetic applied to the 4,7 billion annual increases yield by raising cap gains from 15 to 30% will illustrate that. Get a clue; they (or some large proportion of them) may just decide to preserve wealth rather than risk it, I'm one of those people.

I see so according to you poor people should subsidize rich people because according to u "rich people are sensitive to risk and wont want to make more money unless they make 1million instead of 850,000..

 

[starcraftzzz]

Listen to how stupid you sound, "people will stop wanting to make money if instead of making 1million dollars they instead my 900,000 dollars". Furthermore the rich can either invest money or spend money either way the money circulated in the economy; and in fact more spending would result in less speculation, and bubbles of which caused the last two recessions

You seem to think there is only one type of investor. You completely discount the wealthy elderly who are sensitive to risk. They are in stocks (real estate, rentals, investments in risk ventures; even corporate bonds) because sovereign bond yields are so low, and those investors are all up and down the scale. Some simple arithmetic applied to the 4,7 billion annual increases yield by raising cap gains from 15 to 30% will illustrate that. Get a clue; they (or some large proportion of them) may just decide to preserve wealth rather than risk it, I'm one of those people.

People who have never invested in the stock market have no idea how difficult it really is.
Adding 15% to the tax bracket that invests in capital to gain wealth is a job killing move.

ROTFL can you at least try to read? People are not going to stop investing if it means they make 850,000 instead of 1millon.
But it is odd considering that if there were less investments into capital gains in the 00's the housing might of never happened.

Think of the empty houses that have been bought up by people who have used that as an investment, until those houses are all bought up the housing crises will go on and on. Investing in an idea, a company. To punish those people would be crazy.

I see so according to you making the rich pay the same taxes as the poor is punishment. How much of a tool are you?

And your point about the retired is also a very good one
Millions are investing in the stock market after retirement to supplement there income, to buy that travel trailer, boat, new set of golf clubs
Take that 15% away and your going to impact the GDP in a big way

Yes and the Capital gains taxes proposed wouldn't hurt anyone standard of living

 

[Flopper]

You seem to think there is only one type of investor. You completely discount the wealthy elderly who are sensitive to risk. They are in stocks (real estate, rentals, investments in risk ventures; even corporate bonds) because sovereign bond yields are so low, and those investors are all up and down the scale. Some simple arithmetic applied to the 4,7 billion annual increases yield by raising cap gains from 15 to 30% will illustrate that. Get a clue; they (or some large proportion of them) may just decide to preserve wealth rather than risk it, I'm one of those people.

People who have never invested in the stock market have no idea how difficult it really is.
Adding 15% to the tax bracket that invests in capital to gain wealth is a job killing move.

ROTFL can you at least try to read? People are not going to stop investing if it means they make 850,000 instead of 1millon.
But it is odd considering that if there were less investments into capital gains in the 00's the housing might of never happened.

Think of the empty houses that have been bought up by people who have used that as an investment, until those houses are all bought up the housing crises will go on and on. Investing in an idea, a company. To punish those people would be crazy.

I see so according to you making the rich pay the same taxes as the poor is punishment. How much of a tool are you?

And your point about the retired is also a very good one
Millions are investing in the stock market after retirement to supplement there income, to buy that travel trailer, boat, new set of golf clubs
Take that 15% away and your going to impact the GDP in a big way

Yes and the Capital gains taxes proposed wouldn't hurt anyone standard of living

The most common argument for taxing capital gains at a lower rate is that it promotes economic growth by encouraging savings and investment. But the evidence to support this claim is lacking and it is difficult to find any correlation between low capital-gain rates and economic performance over time. The capital-gain rate was 28 percent throughout much of the 1990s—a time of strong business investment, rising productivity, and spectacular economic growth. By contrast, the capital gains and dividend tax cuts of 2003 were followed by a period of weak investment and growth—even before the recession began in 2007.

The only real justification for a lower tax on capital gains and dividends is too avoid double taxation since the corporation has already been taxes on the profits. However with the huge amount of loopholes in corporate taxes, even this is questionable.

In my opinion, preferred treatment of capital gains should be reserve for gains that actual lead to job growth and economic expansion such as direct investment in company expansion and startups. Possible there should be some reduction for securities purchased on the open market and real estate but there should no preferred treatment for collectibles, commodities, precious metals or foreign investments. These investments do little to promote economic expansion and job growth.

 

[JRK]

People who have never invested in the stock market have no idea how difficult it really is.
Adding 15% to the tax bracket that invests in capital to gain wealth is a job killing move.

ROTFL can you at least try to read? People are not going to stop investing if it means they make 850,000 instead of 1millon.
But it is odd considering that if there were less investments into capital gains in the 00's the housing might of never happened.



I see so according to you making the rich pay the same taxes as the poor is punishment. How much of a tool are you?

And your point about the retired is also a very good one
Millions are investing in the stock market after retirement to supplement there income, to buy that travel trailer, boat, new set of golf clubs
Take that 15% away and your going to impact the GDP in a big way

Yes and the Capital gains taxes proposed wouldn't hurt anyone standard of living

The most common argument for taxing capital gains at a lower rate is that it promotes economic growth by encouraging savings and investment. But the evidence to support this claim is lacking and it is difficult to find any correlation between low capital-gain rates and economic performance over time. The capital-gain rate was 28 percent throughout much of the 1990s—a time of strong business investment, rising productivity, and spectacular economic growth. By contrast, the capital gains and dividend tax cuts of 2003 were followed by a period of weak investment and growth—even before the recession began in 2007.

The only real justification for a lower tax on capital gains and dividends is too avoid double taxation since the corporation has already been taxes on the profits. However with the huge amount of loopholes in corporate taxes, even this is questionable.

In my opinion, preferred treatment of capital gains should be reserve for gains that actual lead to job growth and economic expansion such as direct investment in company expansion and startups. Possible there should be some reduction for securities purchased on the open market and real estate but there should no preferred treatment for collectibles, commodities, precious metals or foreign investments. These investments do little to promote economic expansion and job growth.

We created 7 million jobs from 03-end of 07 after 3 years of negative job growth. I would like to think tax policy had some part of that recovery. By the Obama "numbers" we are up about 2 million jobs from 02

It is in my opinion that raising that rate would only make those who invest move there money to a friendlier country, but you are correct about the different types of capital gains, that cannot be disputed

I am in the opinion also that we owe it to every person who works as well as risks that wealth the worked and paid taxes on to invest to keep there rate of tax burden as low as we can

2007 budget as a base-line
5% UE
we have a balanced budget. Job creation needs all of the help it can get right now with BHO in the way

It is also my opinion that without the tax payers coming up with 150 billion in late 2008 along with the tax policies we have in place today, we would be in a depression of world ending magnitude

Your thread is a good one, and there is much in it I agree with

 

[clevergirl]

Jesus. If we follow your logic me getting taxed on my regular income next year would be double taxation because i was taxed on my income last year.

I see so according to you income taxes are double taxed because people are employed by corporations


Are you to stupid to realize that when you buy something every year that goes of its value declines? So what you are saying is that you really just want inflation taxes to fall only on the poor and not the rich

PLz come back when you are able to think beyond a 1st grade leve

Please respond when your sentences are written correctly and sound intelligent.

These stats are from the IRS. The explanation(s) from economists.

I see so you didnt take my advice

I see you still cannot construct a sentence or an argument~

Here, let me help you. Your inability to digest and comprehend the information I posted led, you, to instead call me names and then act like you knew what you are talking about. You did this name calling about my intelligence using poor spelling; punctuation and grammar- but failed to actually debate it or debunk it.

WOW

 

[JRK]

Please respond when your sentences are written correctly and sound intelligent.

These stats are from the IRS. The explanation(s) from economists.

I see so you didnt take my advice

I see you still cannot construct a sentence or an argument~

Here, let me help you. Your inability to digest and comprehend the information I posted led, you, to instead call me names and then act like you knew what you are talking about. You did this name calling about my intelligence using poor spelling; punctuation and grammar- but failed to actually debate it or debunk it.

WOW

That's my boy
ZZZ, that all he knows how to do
I have no idea whats up with the name calling, Not being able to dispute or even understand the conversation we are having might have something to do with his age. I cannot ever remember calling people names when I was in the 1st grade

Do like I do with people like that, IGNORE
I got a total of about 12 on there.
Have a good day

 

[SniperFire]

We were with-in 163 billion dollars of a balanced budget in 2007.

We were within $163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007 as sure as Clinton left a surplus!

Do you deny the Clinton SURPLUS???????

About that. What year was it in which the National debt went down?

 

[JRK]

We were with-in 163 billion dollars of a balanced budget in 2007.

We were within $163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007 as sure as Clinton left a surplus!

Do you deny the Clinton SURPLUS???????

About that. What year was it in which the National debt went down?

As far as I know it has not went down. It may have late in Clinton's term, but he was playing with SS money as I recall

What I am talking about is with-in the year. ZZZ has no idea what we are talking about

The Debt is not the same as the deficit for the physical year. Late in Clinton's term the GOP congress balanced the budget.
This would be another item ZZZ does not understand. It is the judicial responsibility of congress to pass the budget for the physical year

More recently, the federal budget was balanced in fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. A Republican-controlled Congress approved the appropriations for each one of those years and Democratic President Bill Clinton signed them. In fiscal years 1994 and 1995, when President Clinton governed with a Democrat-controlled Congress, the federal government ran deficits of $203.2 billion and $163.9 billion respectively.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._8iUBQ&usg=AFQjCNHjQOzDTlLY5wDeyUsLvXCQLHNNhQ

He calls people names and he has no idea how our republic works. Its like the 20007 defict was 163 billion. This would be the last budget GWB did with a GOP congress
2 years later we were facing a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit

we spent 2.7 trillion in 2007
we spent 3.5 in 2009

There is no left over money, it all goes to debt which was around 5 trillion when GWB took office

 

[edthecynic]

We were with-in 163 billion dollars of a balanced budget in 2007.

We were within $163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007 as sure as Clinton left a surplus!

Do you deny the Clinton SURPLUS???????

About that. What year was it in which the National debt went down?

About that, what year did Bush increase the GOP national debt only $163 billion??

And that is the point, if you are going to claim that Bush had a deficit of only $163 billion in 2007 because he borrowed $340 billion from SS, then you can't deny Clinton had a surplus because he also borrowed from SS. If you say Clinton never had a surplus because the GOP national debt went up every year, then you can't claim that Bush had a deficit of $163 billion in 2007 because the GOP national debt rose $500 billion in 2007.
Get It?

 

[edthecynic]

We were within $163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007 as sure as Clinton left a surplus!

Do you deny the Clinton SURPLUS???????

About that. What year was it in which the National debt went down?

As far as I know it has not went down. It may have late in Clinton's term, but he was playing with SS money as I recall

What I am talking about is with-in the year. ZZZ has no idea what we are talking about

The Debt is not the same as the deficit for the physical year. Late in Clinton's term the GOP congress balanced the budget.
This would be another item ZZZ does not understand. It is the judicial responsibility of congress to pass the budget for the physical year

More recently, the federal budget was balanced in fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. A Republican-controlled Congress approved the appropriations for each one of those years and Democratic President Bill Clinton signed them. In fiscal years 1994 and 1995, when President Clinton governed with a Democrat-controlled Congress, the federal government ran deficits of $203.2 billion and $163.9 billion respectively.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._8iUBQ&usg=AFQjCNHjQOzDTlLY5wDeyUsLvXCQLHNNhQ

He calls people names and he has no idea how our republic works. Its like the 20007 defict was 163 billion. This would be the last budget GWB did with a GOP congress
2 years later we were facing a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit

we spent 2.7 trillion in 2007
we spent 3.5 in 2009

There is no left over money, it all goes to debt which was around 5 trillion when GWB took office

The GOP Congress has never balanced a budget.

Clinton forced the GOP Congress kicking and screaming to give him a balanced budget to sign, but as soon as Clinton was gone that SAME GOP Congress with Bush replacing Clinton never balanced a budget again.
Same Congress, Different president, no balanced budget.
The only difference between the 1998 to 2001 balanced budgets and the runaway deficit spending the following 6 years was the president, not the Congress.

 

[JRK]

We were within $163 billion of a balanced budget in 2007 as sure as Clinton left a surplus!

Do you deny the Clinton SURPLUS???????

About that. What year was it in which the National debt went down?

About that, what year did Bush increase the GOP national debt only $163 billion??

And that is the point, if you are going to claim that Bush had a deficit of only $163 billion in 2007 because he borrowed $340 billion from SS, then you can't deny Clinton had a surplus because he also borrowed from SS. If you say Clinton never had a surplus because the GOP national debt went up every year, then you can't claim that Bush had a deficit of $163 billion in 2007 because the GOP national debt rose $500 billion in 2007.
Get It?

There is a huge difference in a deficit within the year and the debt
I did not deny Clinton any-thing
The national debt in 2007 has 0 to do with the year. We have to balance the budget before we can pay down the debt (the year added 163 billion, not 500)
Debt growth has a many of congress and Presidents that put that debt number you spoke of
I have been clear on that and at no time did I try to claim different

The 07 budget with 5% UE is that place to start
It has a fair tax policy and with real job growth would balance the budget
The 07 deficit had 2 wars added to the bottom line as well as some Katrina hang-over

 

[JRK]

About that. What year was it in which the National debt went down?

As far as I know it has not went down. It may have late in Clinton's term, but he was playing with SS money as I recall

What I am talking about is with-in the year. ZZZ has no idea what we are talking about

The Debt is not the same as the deficit for the physical year. Late in Clinton's term the GOP congress balanced the budget.
This would be another item ZZZ does not understand. It is the judicial responsibility of congress to pass the budget for the physical year

More recently, the federal budget was balanced in fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. A Republican-controlled Congress approved the appropriations for each one of those years and Democratic President Bill Clinton signed them. In fiscal years 1994 and 1995, when President Clinton governed with a Democrat-controlled Congress, the federal government ran deficits of $203.2 billion and $163.9 billion respectively.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=..._8iUBQ&usg=AFQjCNHjQOzDTlLY5wDeyUsLvXCQLHNNhQ

He calls people names and he has no idea how our republic works. Its like the 20007 defict was 163 billion. This would be the last budget GWB did with a GOP congress
2 years later we were facing a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit

we spent 2.7 trillion in 2007
we spent 3.5 in 2009

There is no left over money, it all goes to debt which was around 5 trillion when GWB took office

The GOP Congress has never balanced a budget.

Clinton forced the GOP Congress kicking and screaming to give him a balanced budget to sign, but as soon as Clinton was gone that SAME GOP Congress with Bush replacing Clinton never balanced a budget again.
Same Congress, Different president, no balanced budget.
The only difference between the 1998 to 2001 balanced budgets and the runaway deficit spending the following 6 years was the president, not the Congress.

Do you have any idea how this works?
You call this kicking and screaming? It was the other way around (Which Clinton did win in the end, but that was after massive cuts were agreed to)

The government shutdown took place in two phases. The first lasted five days in November 1995, until the White House agreed to congressional demands to balance the budget within seven years. But talks on implementing that agreement failed, and the second shutdown lasted 21 days, from Dec. 15, 1995 to Jan. 6. 1996. (Then a blizzard struck Washington and local federal workers could not get back to work for days after that.)

The sticking point was the GOP demand that Clinton agree to their version of a balanced budget. In months of negotiations, Clinton had actually given a far amount of ground, infuriating Democrats on the left. He agreed to a balanced budget over seven years, to tax cuts, to changes in mandatory spending programs such as Medicare.

Accept the winning headline. Gingrich and his Republicans had actually achieved a great victory by the end of the first shutdown. Newspaper headlines proclaimed: "President Agrees to Balance Budget in Seven Years." The rub, of course, is that there still were serious differences over policies and which budgetary numbers to use. But the irony is that if Republicans had quit while they were ahead,
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...uvncBA&usg=AFQjCNG5aUbTd0SoRCoV1gpNuGB6lchuHw

In the end the press spun this event and Newt did not help. The reaon is clear as it is stated here-in

 

[rdean]

According to statistics compiled from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by the Tax Foundation, those people making above $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent, and carried 93.3 percent of the total tax burden.

In contrast, Americans making less than $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 3.5 percent and their total share of the tax burden was just 6.7 percent.

Americans making more than $250,000 had an effective tax rate of 23.4 percent and their total share of the tax burden was 45.7 percent.

Out of the 143 million tax returns that were filed with the IRS in 2010, 58 million – or 41 percent – of those filers were non-payers.

In other words, only 85 million actually paid taxes.
Americans Making Over $50,000 a Year Paid 93.3 Percent of All Taxes in 2010 | CNSNews.com

So the solution is to take what little the poor have and make them destitute. That'll teach 'em.

Makes you wonder where they'll find a job since those "job creators" moved their jobs to China. Odd that.