CBO report confirms wealthy is already paying MORE than their 'fair share'

CBO Report Confirms Rich Already Pay Their "Fair Share


with the top 1% paying 38% of all federal taxes and the bottom 45% paying nothing its hard to imagine that the bottom 45% are paying their fair share!

Its seems class war has become the liberal's stock in trade whether it is purely idiotic or not!!
 
Only Republicans could work to ship American jobs overseas...
There's never been an 'American job' that's been shipped overseas. Ever. Sure, I've created lots of jobs and when I felt like it I shipped my jobs overseas, but that goofy "American jobs" talk is right out of the looney bin.
...devastate the Middle Class...
This is an economics forum and we deal in hard numbers here. Real meadian wages were at an all time high and then the Democrats took over; so say links we've already posted with the CBO, the BEA, and the Census Br.
...complain it is they who "pay too much".
That's only part of it. Paying lots of taxes isn't the big problem, what I hate is not having the freedom to create enough wealth to have something left over after the taxes are paid.
 
...technically, buyers & sellers of futures contracts are speculating, not investing. Speculation can be beneficial, e.g. farmers can lock in a lower-but-guaranteed price...
Then it shouldn't be called 'speculation'...
Speculation
The taking of above-average risks to achieve above-average returns, generally during a relatively short period of time. Speculation involves buying something on the basis of its potential selling price rather than on the basis of its actual value.

Wall Street Words: An A to Z Guide to Investment Terms for Today's Investor by David L. Scott. Copyright © 2003 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Futures would be more properly called a hedge:
Hedge
A transaction that reduces the risk of an investment.

Copyright © 2012, Campbell R. Harvey. All Rights Reserved.

--or maybe a derivative...
Derivative
Financial products, such as futures contracts, options, and mortgage-backed securities. Most of derivatives' value is based on the value of an underlying security, commodity, or other financial instrument.

Dictionary of Financial Terms. Copyright © 2008 Lightbulb Press, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
CBO Report Confirms Rich Already Pay Their "Fair Share


with the top 1% paying 38% of all federal taxes and the bottom 45% paying nothing its hard to imagine that the bottom 45% are paying their fair share!

Its seems class war has become the liberal's stock in trade whether it is purely idiotic or not!!

the 45% that pay no taxes is from the Bush era tax structure. I got back more in my refund under Bush than Obama
 
CBO Report Confirms Rich Already Pay Their "Fair Share


with the top 1% paying 38% of all federal taxes and the bottom 45% paying nothing its hard to imagine that the bottom 45% are paying their fair share!

Its seems class war has become the liberal's stock in trade whether it is purely idiotic or not!!

the 45% that pay no taxes is from the Bush era tax structure. I got back more in my refund under Bush than Obama

no idea what your point is but isn't it strange to say the rich don't pay their fair share when they pay almost all the taxes??
 
CBO Report Confirms Rich Already Pay Their "Fair Share


with the top 1% paying 38% of all federal taxes and the bottom 45% paying nothing its hard to imagine that the bottom 45% are paying their fair share!

Its seems class war has become the liberal's stock in trade whether it is purely idiotic or not!!

the 45% that pay no taxes is from the Bush era tax structure. I got back more in my refund under Bush than Obama

That makes no difference, it has to do with what the total earnings was, how much in taxes you paid in, what your deductions are and on and on, so you have no clue, like many, on how this system works.
 
with the top 1% paying 38% of all federal taxes and the bottom 45% paying nothing its hard to imagine that the bottom 45% are paying their fair share!

Its seems class war has become the liberal's stock in trade whether it is purely idiotic or not!!

the 45% that pay no taxes is from the Bush era tax structure. I got back more in my refund under Bush than Obama

That makes no difference, it has to do with what the total earnings was, how much in taxes you paid in, what your deductions are and on and on, so you have no clue, like many, on how this system works.

Here is how it works, the top 1% pay 40% of all federal income taxes and BO claims they don't pay their fair share.

It would be effortless to make the case that the bottom 45% who pay nothing don't pay their fair share.

IF BO can get away with this then we can understand how Hitler Stalin and Mao came to power. Truth does not matter to most human beings
 
...technically, buyers & sellers of futures contracts are speculating, not investing. Speculation can be beneficial, e.g. farmers can lock in a lower-but-guaranteed price...
Then it shouldn't be called 'speculation'...
Speculation
The taking of above-average risks to achieve above-average returns, generally during a relatively short period of time. Speculation involves buying something on the basis of its potential selling price rather than on the basis of its actual value.

Wall Street Words: An A to Z Guide to Investment Terms for Today's Investor by David L. Scott. Copyright © 2003 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Futures would be more properly called a hedge:
Hedge
A transaction that reduces the risk of an investment.

Copyright © 2012, Campbell R. Harvey. All Rights Reserved.

For centuries, the term "speculation" has been used. Farmers hedge against catastrophic loss; speculators assume that downside risk, for upside reward (speculating, from weather forecasts & trends, that crop prices will actually rise). Regarding asset price "bubbles", those are pure speculation -- nobody is hedging against risks, only guessing prices will keep rising. The 2006 housing bubble collapse was caused by rampant speculation (risking for reward, and losing), not by hedging (playing it safe, foregoing possible profit, to avoid loss).




Government contracts are funded from taxes ?

Yes. Where else would the money come from?

bonds, grants and govt. investment portfolio.
  • bonds = government debt = taxes tomorrow
  • grants = taxes today
  • investment portfolio = assets bought with taxes yesterday
Pres. Obama & Senator-candidate Warren are not wrong, to attribute infrastructure & the internet, to "government spending". (Past successes bear no direct relation to present circumstances, and imply no present successes.)
 
...For centuries, the term "speculation" has been used...
--and sometimes it seems the main use on these threads is to 'prove' that vicious chaotic capitalism should be replaced by caring planned Marxism. The choice here and now is between a rhetoric 'food-fight' or the use of a standard financial definition that observably fits.
...The 2006 housing bubble collapse was caused by rampant speculation (risking for reward, and losing), not by hedging (playing it safe, foregoing possible profit, to avoid loss)...
That line is the current pop-econ talk with the community organizer set, but business analysts report lots of possible factors and that crowd is nowhere near a consensus. FWIW, in historic terms the home price rise of the last decade ---
medhomeprlg.png

--was no big shakes, due mainly (imho) to dumping that stupid gold standard.
 
Only Republicans could work to ship American jobs overseas, devastate the Middle Class and then complain it is they who "pay too much".

I love watching you in defeat! You can't argue with the numbers - you didn't even TRY. Instead, you just make a short absurd statement that everybody realizes is worthless immediately.

Barack Obama has shipped more jobs over seas than ANY conservative in history. The fact is, the wealthy are paying a much higher percentage of taxes than the percentage of wealth they bring in. You lose...
 
The 2006 housing bubble collapse was caused by rampant speculation (risking for reward, and losing), not by hedging (playing it safe, foregoing possible profit, to avoid loss).

You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about (but that doesn't stop you from commenting anyway).

The housing collapse had absolutely, positively, NOTHING to do with investing (sepculation, hedging, or anything else). It was the direct result of liberal Socialism (as usual).

The housing market collapsed because of Bill Clinton's "Community Reinvestment Act" which ensured that people who didn't previously qualify for home loans received them (because the idiot liberal - in true Communist/Marxist/Socialist fashion believes everyone should own a home, whther they can afford it or not). Of course, everyone of them can make their first mortgage payment. But over time (though a wide variety of reasons), people start falling behind. They start putting everything on credit cards, until those get maxed out. Eventually, they default on everything and file for bankruptcy. At first, it's not that big of deal. But the more time goes by, the more people are added to the bankruptcy pool.

With each bankruptcy - two things occur. First, is that yet another house is on the market at well below market price (just so the banks can unload them). With too mnay houses (too much supply, not enough demand) at too low of a price, all homes start to plummet. The second that thing occurs is that as the banks to get repaid on their loans and on their credit cards, they have to start laying off workers. Which then ADDS to the pool of people now unable to pay their mortgage. The entire thing continues to spiral out of control.

That's what happens when fucking liberals control government - and government sticks it's nose in the private sector where it doesn't belong.
 
The evidence continues to mount that liberals are lying about everything. The numbers are pretty astounding (and sad):

CBO Report Confirms Rich Already Pay Their "Fair Share"

nope, not according to our dear leader-

[L]ook, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

"The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." - Barack Obama

This guy is either the biggest idiot ever or the biggest liar ever (I think it's pretty clear that it's both). The fact is, the government created "ARPANET" as a means of ensuring communications through redundancy in the event of a nuclear attack. It absolutely, positively did not create the internet "so that all the companies could make money off it".
If you do not believe that the internet was developed from Arpanet, then you are ignorant. No crime in ignorance. But you are also totally wrong. Arpanet was the basis for the internet,
If you diagree, pray tell who did develop the internet protocols and archetecture???
 
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.

so what??? do you want to set up a Nazi liberal panel in Washington to track down all the people who helped so they can be compensated? But then the people who helped were also helped in order to be in a position to help, and so on. Even the Nazis would find that a difficult problem for bureaucrats to solve.

Then of course lets not forget the parents who get most of the credit. Should we have a law that they get 70% of their children's fortune above $500,000??


Then of course MDs help us all stay alive which is pretty special. So must they get all of everyone's income since you can't help more than they do?
Ed, another brilliant post. Problem is, I do not see any point in anything you said.
 
The 2006 housing bubble collapse was caused by rampant speculation (risking for reward, and losing), not by hedging (playing it safe, foregoing possible profit, to avoid loss).

You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about (but that doesn't stop you from commenting anyway).

The housing collapse had absolutely, positively, NOTHING to do with investing (sepculation, hedging, or anything else). It was the direct result of liberal Socialism (as usual).

The housing market collapsed because of Bill Clinton's "Community Reinvestment Act" which ensured that people who didn't previously qualify for home loans received them (because the idiot liberal - in true Communist/Marxist/Socialist fashion believes everyone should own a home, whther they can afford it or not). Of course, everyone of them can make their first mortgage payment. But over time (though a wide variety of reasons), people start falling behind. They start putting everything on credit cards, until those get maxed out. Eventually, they default on everything and file for bankruptcy. At first, it's not that big of deal. But the more time goes by, the more people are added to the bankruptcy pool.

With each bankruptcy - two things occur. First, is that yet another house is on the market at well below market price (just so the banks can unload them). With too mnay houses (too much supply, not enough demand) at too low of a price, all homes start to plummet. The second that thing occurs is that as the banks to get repaid on their loans and on their credit cards, they have to start laying off workers. Which then ADDS to the pool of people now unable to pay their mortgage. The entire thing continues to spiral out of control.

That's what happens when fucking liberals control government - and government sticks it's nose in the private sector where it doesn't belong.
Really, Really ignorant. Another con who believes the fight wing dogma, and passes it on. God, I would like to see one who actually does some research, and uses objective reason.
 
The 2006 housing bubble collapse was caused by rampant speculation (risking for reward, and losing), not by hedging (playing it safe, foregoing possible profit, to avoid loss).

You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about (but that doesn't stop you from commenting anyway).

The housing collapse had absolutely, positively, NOTHING to do with investing (sepculation, hedging, or anything else). It was the direct result of liberal Socialism (as usual).

The housing market collapsed because of Bill Clinton's "Community Reinvestment Act" which ensured that people who didn't previously qualify for home loans received them (because the idiot liberal - in true Communist/Marxist/Socialist fashion believes everyone should own a home, whther they can afford it or not). Of course, everyone of them can make their first mortgage payment. But over time (though a wide variety of reasons), people start falling behind. They start putting everything on credit cards, until those get maxed out. Eventually, they default on everything and file for bankruptcy. At first, it's not that big of deal. But the more time goes by, the more people are added to the bankruptcy pool.

With each bankruptcy - two things occur. First, is that yet another house is on the market at well below market price (just so the banks can unload them). With too mnay houses (too much supply, not enough demand) at too low of a price, all homes start to plummet. The second that thing occurs is that as the banks to get repaid on their loans and on their credit cards, they have to start laying off workers. Which then ADDS to the pool of people now unable to pay their mortgage. The entire thing continues to spiral out of control.

That's what happens when fucking liberals control government - and government sticks it's nose in the private sector where it doesn't belong.
Really, Really ignorant. Another con who believes the fight wing dogma, and passes it on. God, I would like to see one who actually does some research, and uses objective reason.
 
Odd that the lefties around here have no comment. But then a little thing like facts and data
don't mean anything unless it supports their ideology. Consider this:


snippet:

New Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures show that the top 1% paid 21.3% of all federal taxes from 1993 to 2000, when Clinton was president, but they paid 25.1% from 2003 to 2008, after the Bush tax cuts. If 21.3% was a fair share in the Clinton years, then the top 1% has been paying much more than its fair share since 2003.
.
.

Similarly, the CBO finds that after-tax median household income rose by 48.8 percent from 1980 to 2009, after properly adjusting for shrinking household size (more singles, fewer children). The table below, constructed from CBO data, shows what happened when.

Changes in Real Median Household Income
Adjusted for Household Size
Before taxes After taxes
1979-1983 0 0
1983-1989 13.5 12.8
1989-1992 0 0
1992-2000 17.3 18.1
2000-2007 10.3 13.9
2007-2009 -4.7 -1.2

In the CBO’s after-tax estimates, real median income rose 18.1% from 1992 to 2000 (thanks to the Internet and cellphone revolutions), but median income also grew by another 13.9 percent from 2000 to 2007. Comparing pretax and after-tax estimates shows the Bush tax cuts and refundable credits helped quite a lot, particularly in the crash from 2007 to 2009.

The CBO’s Gini coefficient (a broad measure of inequality) was 0.426 in 2009 – essentially unchanged from 0.424 in 1988. Like the strong 1992-2007 increase in real median income, the absence of any sustained upward trend in such broad measures of inequality is unlikely to be treated as newsworthy during an election year.

In late 2011, by contrast, the CBO grabbed a lot of media attention with a supposedly new report saying, “The share of income received by the top 1% grew . . . to over 17% in 2007.” In a Wall Street Journal article last December, I asked why the report stopped with the frothy cyclical peak of 2007, since I could easily calculate from IRS data that “the share of after-tax income of the top 1% by my estimate fell to 11.3% in 2009.” Now that the CBO has finally gotten around to releasing estimates for 2008 and 2009, it turns out that my estimate was almost exactly on the mark: the top 1 percent’s share of after-tax income fell to 11.5% in 2009.

The CBO on Falling Incomes and Rising Tax Shares of the Top 1% | Cato @ Liberty
Anyone who goes to CATO for impartial data is a moron.

How about I send you to Moveon.

Idiot.
 
...The table below, constructed from CBO data, shows what happened when.

Changes in Real Median Household Income
Adjusted for Household Size
Before taxes After taxes
1979-1983 0 0
1983-1989 13.5 12.8
1989-1992 0 0
1992-2000 17.3 18.1
2000-2007 10.3 13.9
2007-2009 -4.7 -1.2

...The CBO on Falling Incomes and Rising Tax Shares of the Top 1% | Cato @ Liberty
Anyone who goes to CATO for impartial data is a moron...
Some of us are willing to use Cato's take as a "clue" to further research and see how it stacks up with other sources:
medincscompr.png

Others sit back and complain; they don't do their own research becuase they haven't a 'clue'.
 
in historic terms the home price rise of the last decade ... was no big shakes
After the housing bubble burst, house prices "corrected", decreasing down to historic trend levels. House prices nearly doubled, however, during the bubble, as observed by economist Robert Shiller. Banks + investing (businesses borrowing to expand operations) grows economies; banks + speculating (rampant home loans) wastes wealth, and causes recessions.
Shiller_IE2_Fig_2-1.png
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top