As this graph shows it was the Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the rich that have created the income disparity in the United States.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When was the last time YOU actually wrote a check to the IRS?It has been an issue since the 1970's that productivity in the lower and middle class jobs have risen, but wages have remained flat. In other words, the "rich" are not earning all of the money that they make.
If those at the top of the income distribution receive far more than the value of what they create, and those at lower income levels receive less, then one way to correct this is to increase taxes at the upper end of the income distribution and use the proceeds to protect important social programs that benefit working-class households, programs that are currently threatened by budget deficits.
This would help to rectify the maldistribution of income that is preventing workers from realizing their share of the gains from economic growth.
In what way does this not make any sense?
And don't get it twisted. I have nothing against the wealthy. I think these hard-working individuals deserve to be well paid for what they do, but not nearly to this extent.
They do? I have never paid more than 6% of my gross.The rich pay taxes at a much lower rate than the rest of us?Thank you for this "fact".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.
Richest 400 Earn More, Pay Lower Tax Rate - Forbes.com
Is there a point attached?
What is it and how does your post support it?
Why wouldnt it be?Is that fair?
Jobs
If the liberals stop promising to tax the rich so they can hand out benefits to their constituents, how will they get people to vote for them?Taxing the "rich" is a con job, it won't help the economy and the biggest loser will be the poor--YES THE POOR!
As this graph shows it was the Reagan and Bush tax cuts for the rich that have created the income disparity in the United States.
Jobs
Uh huh! Them job creators sure paid Presdent Bush back after he cut their taxes alright.
Under Bush, private employment shrank by 673,000 jobs, federal employment grew by 50,000 jobs, and government employment grew by 1,753,000 jobs.
Job Creation: Bush vs. Obama - By Veronique de Rugy - The Corner - National Review Online
Does Increasing Taxes On The Wealthy Hurt
US Unemployment Rate by Year
2001 4.76
2002 5.78
2003 5.99
2004 5.53
2005 5.08
2006 4.63
2007 4.61
2008 5.76
2009 9.26
Wait....Bush signed a bill ...Tax Reconcilliation Act, which increased the percentage of Americans not owing taxes from apprx 37% to 48%.
If the liberals stop promising to tax the rich so they can hand out benefits to their constituents, how will they get people to vote for them?Taxing the "rich" is a con job, it won't help the economy and the biggest loser will be the poor--YES THE POOR!
Bush signed a bill ...Tax Reconcilliation Act, which increased the percentage of Americans not owing taxes from apprx 37% to 48%.
Then you right wingers whine about 1/2 of Americans not paying taxes. Doh!
In the 60's, CEO pay, compared to the lowly clock puncher, was about 25-1. Today, it's over 350-1!
The latest figures from the IRS show the top 30 Fortune 500 companies paid zero tax from 2008-2010.
The remainder of the 500 paid an average of 18%...far less then what the average middle class American pays.
The rich are far more likely to own corporations and business's, right? Therefore, their trucks cause far more damage to our infrastructure and they use far more of our common resources.
Yes, the rich should be paying more! You'd have to be an idiot not to realize the middle class, the backbone of America, has all but disappeared, while the rich have grown and taken far more of the cream off the top then at any time in history.
Besides, all we're saying is place the top tax rate back to Clinton era levels...a time when the nation enjoyed great properity.
But repubs would've rather balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and the poor while preserving the greatest income disparity for the rich in the history of the world.
Cry me a river.
Of course it is - everything they do is a means to gain and retain as much partisan political power as possible.If the liberals stop promising to tax the rich so they can hand out benefits to their constituents, how will they get people to vote for them?Taxing the "rich" is a con job, it won't help the economy and the biggest loser will be the poor--YES THE POOR!
And that's all it's really about!
Bush signed a bill ...Tax Reconcilliation Act, which increased the percentage of Americans not owing taxes from apprx 37% to 48%.
Then you right wingers whine about 1/2 of Americans not paying taxes. Doh!
In the 60's, CEO pay, compared to the lowly clock puncher, was about 25-1. Today, it's over 350-1!
The latest figures from the IRS show the top 30 Fortune 500 companies paid zero tax from 2008-2010.
The remainder of the 500 paid an average of 18%...far less then what the average middle class American pays.
The rich are far more likely to own corporations and business's, right? Therefore, their trucks cause far more damage to our infrastructure and they use far more of our common resources.
Yes, the rich should be paying more! You'd have to be an idiot not to realize the middle class, the backbone of America, has all but disappeared, while the rich have grown and taken far more of the cream off the top then at any time in history.
Besides, all we're saying is place the top tax rate back to Clinton era levels...a time when the nation enjoyed great properity.
But repubs would've rather balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and the poor while preserving the greatest income disparity for the rich in the history of the world.
Cry me a river.
You might want to ask The Obama why He didn't do so, rather than forcing the Democrats to extend GWB's tax cuts.There is certainly no good reason why we shouldn't at least go back to Clinton era rates.
There is certainly no good reason why we shouldn't at least go back to Clinton era rates.
Bush signed a bill ...Tax Reconcilliation Act, which increased the percentage of Americans not owing taxes from apprx 37% to 48%.
Then you right wingers whine about 1/2 of Americans not paying taxes. Doh!
In the 60's, CEO pay, compared to the lowly clock puncher, was about 25-1. Today, it's over 350-1!
The latest figures from the IRS show the top 30 Fortune 500 companies paid zero tax from 2008-2010.
The remainder of the 500 paid an average of 18%...far less then what the average middle class American pays.
The rich are far more likely to own corporations and business's, right? Therefore, their trucks cause far more damage to our infrastructure and they use far more of our common resources.
Yes, the rich should be paying more! You'd have to be an idiot not to realize the middle class, the backbone of America, has all but disappeared, while the rich have grown and taken far more of the cream off the top then at any time in history.
Besides, all we're saying is place the top tax rate back to Clinton era levels...a time when the nation enjoyed great properity.
But repubs would've rather balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and the poor while preserving the greatest income disparity for the rich in the history of the world.
Cry me a river.
So your solution to a disappearing Middle Class is to tax the wealthy until they become the Middle Class?
There is certainly no good reason why we shouldn't at least go back to Clinton era rates.