Economics

[Dad2three]

That would be your opinion. Which, me boy, has NO value. You seem to have a high opinion of your understanding of history. Good for you. You know how much the rest of us value your opinion.
Next time try a link to some proof. Someone may be interested.

Thank you for your thoughtful and most gracious assessment of my opinion and your open minded approach to the topic. As for 'proof', well I could link you to the Library of Congress that most likely has ALL the documents that real students of history study on the topic, usually for years. But here's a pretty good place to start and then you can branch out from there:
Federalist Papers, AntiFederalist Papers, Amendments, Constitution

Our tenet ever was... that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1817. ME 15:133

You mean the ANTI federalist TJ would say that? The same guy who doubled the US without Congress's approval?

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service (VA, MEDICARE) and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.


....This government provided healthcare service was to be paid for by a mandatory tax on the maritime sailors (a little more than 1% of a sailor’s wages), the same to be withheld from a sailor’s pay and turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. The payment of this tax for health care was not optional. If a sailor wanted to work, he had to pay up.

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -In 1798 - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

First Corps skip the tax bite,

I know, corporations get to subtract COGS, employees compensation and all sorts of other deductible expenses before they pay taxes on their profit. Just awful!
They should have to pay 35% on revenue, with no deductions. Right?

second top 1% pay an Avg 21% fed tax bite.

What does that have to do with the taxes on their "income from corporate salaries"?

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

We've already discussed how S Corporations have shifted taxes from corporations to individuals.

From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

Ummmm....in 1992, the top tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

lol, Read it again Bubba.

From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

Ummmm....in 1992, the top tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

GAWD

" From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%"

YOU are giving Rabi and Ed a run for the money on dumbest conservative Bubba!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

lol, Read it again Bubba.

From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

Ummmm....in 1992, the top tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

GAWD

" From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%"

YOU are giving Rabi and Ed a run for the money on dumbest conservative Bubba!

Yeah, I saw your stupid claim and I showed how the top tax rate had gone up since 1992.

Damn, you're stupid.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

Ummmm....in 1992, the top tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

GAWD

" From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%"

YOU are giving Rabi and Ed a run for the money on dumbest conservative Bubba!

Yeah, I saw your stupid claim and I showed how the top tax rate had gone up since 1992.

Damn, you're stupid.

yes top 1% pay 40% of federal income tax now and paid only 22% under Reagan

 

[Dad2three]

From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

Ummmm....in 1992, the top tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

GAWD

" From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%"

YOU are giving Rabi and Ed a run for the money on dumbest conservative Bubba!

Yeah, I saw your stupid claim and I showed how the top tax rate had gone up since 1992.

Damn, you're stupid.

Yes, you are, YOU don't understand the difference of a rate and a percentage. Got it

 

[Dad2three]

GAWD

" From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%"

YOU are giving Rabi and Ed a run for the money on dumbest conservative Bubba!

Yeah, I saw your stupid claim and I showed how the top tax rate had gone up since 1992.

Damn, you're stupid.

yes top 1% pay 40% of federal income tax now and paid only 22% under Reagan

LIE. I'm shocked (not really)

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

LIE. I'm shocked (not really)

please say what the truth is

 

[Dad2three]

LIE. I'm shocked (not really)

please say what the truth is

The 'job creators' pay 37% of the 42% of the pie called income taxes, ON RECORD incomes, lowest tax burden in 80+ years SUSTAINED!

CONTEXT!!!


Poor Americans Pay Double The State, Local Tax Rates Of Top One Percent

Total U.S. taxes are barely progressive, as shown in this table and chart from Citizens for Tax Justice. The bottom 99 percent pays a 27.5 percent total tax rate on average, while the top 1 percent pays an average 29 percent tax rate, according to 2011 data from Citizens for Tax Justice.

The share of total taxes paid by the richest one percent (21.6 percent) is almost identical to that group’s share of total income (21.0 percent).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/poor-americans-state-local-taxes_n_1903993.html

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The 'job creators' pay 37% of the 42% of the pie called income taxes

so you think the job creators( how many are there) should pay 100% of income tax?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

GAWD

" From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%"

YOU are giving Rabi and Ed a run for the money on dumbest conservative Bubba!

Yeah, I saw your stupid claim and I showed how the top tax rate had gone up since 1992.

Damn, you're stupid.

Yes, you are, YOU don't understand the difference of a rate and a percentage. Got it

Your source said their rate went down, I showed you their rate went up. Sorry.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yeah, I saw your stupid claim and I showed how the top tax rate had gone up since 1992.

Damn, you're stupid.

Yes, you are, YOU don't understand the difference of a rate and a percentage. Got it

Your source said their rate went down, I showed you their rate went up. Sorry.

top 1% income 12.8% of total to 17.2% from 1980 to 2010
taxes from 18% of total to 40% froom 1980 to 2010
conclusion: taxes went up more than income

no country depends on 1% the way USA does
NYS and CA get 50% of their revenue from top 1%

 

[Rshermr]

Executives aren't taxed at the same rate, or higher, than corporations?

First Corps skip the tax bite, second top 1% pay an Avg 21% fed tax bite. third, YOU are a moron!


Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP
1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%



From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

First Corps skip the tax bite,

I know, corporations get to subtract COGS, employees compensation and all sorts of other deductible expenses before they pay taxes on their profit. Just awful!
They should have to pay 35% on revenue, with no deductions. Right?

second top 1% pay an Avg 21% fed tax bite.

What does that have to do with the taxes on their "income from corporate salaries"?

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

We've already discussed how S Corporations have shifted taxes from corporations to individuals.

From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

Ummmm....in 1992, the top tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

My god. Math IS hard for you, toddster. This is embarrassing. Or maybe you are just being dishonest.

Here, another source says:Wealthiest Americans paying 17 percent effective income tax rate, down 9 points since 1992.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...ive-income-tax-rate-down-9-points-since-1992#

So, 17 percent in 2011, the add 9 and you have 26% in 1992. That would be a decrease of 9 divided by 26 which would equal around 35% DECREASE in tax rate between 1992 and 2011. So, there you go, me boy. Really simple math working with effective tax rates. Please, quit wasting people's time, especially those trying to tell you the truth. I know, being a con tool, you prefer to believe what you are told. But I hate people who lie to me. You con's seem to love it. As long it is what you WANT to believe. To hell with truth, eh.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

First Corps skip the tax bite, second top 1% pay an Avg 21% fed tax bite. third, YOU are a moron!


Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP
1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%



From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

First Corps skip the tax bite,

I know, corporations get to subtract COGS, employees compensation and all sorts of other deductible expenses before they pay taxes on their profit. Just awful!
They should have to pay 35% on revenue, with no deductions. Right?

second top 1% pay an Avg 21% fed tax bite.

What does that have to do with the taxes on their "income from corporate salaries"?

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

We've already discussed how S Corporations have shifted taxes from corporations to individuals.

From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

Ummmm....in 1992, the top tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

My god. Math IS hard for you, toddster. This is embarrassing. Or maybe you are just being dishonest.

Here, another source says:Wealthiest Americans paying 17 percent effective income tax rate, down 9 points since 1992.
Wealthiest Americans paying 17 percent effective income tax rate, down 9 points since 1992.

So, 17 percent in 2011, the add 9 and you have 26% in 1992. That would be a decrease of 9 divided by 26 which would equal around 35% DECREASE in tax rate between 1992 and 2011. So, there you go, me boy. Really simple math working with effective tax rates. Please, quit wasting people's time, especially those trying to tell you the truth. I know, being a con tool, you prefer to believe what you are told. But I hate people who lie to me. You con's seem to love it. As long it is what you WANT to believe. To hell with truth, eh.

But I hate people who lie to me.

And yet your lips are firmly planted on Obama's ass.........

In 1992, the top income tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

Whine to the IRS. Maybe they can help you with your confusion?

 

[Dad2three]

The 'job creators' pay 37% of the 42% of the pie called income taxes

so you think the job creators( how many are there) should pay 100% of income tax?

You mean those 'job creators' who saw their incomes increase 275% the past 35 years yet the tax burden on that SHARE of income drop about 40%?

 

[Dad2three]

Yeah, I saw your stupid claim and I showed how the top tax rate had gone up since 1992.

Damn, you're stupid.

Yes, you are, YOU don't understand the difference of a rate and a percentage. Got it

Your source said their rate went down, I showed you their rate went up. Sorry.

Gawwwddd you're ignorant. Willful or genetic?

Their tax burden went down...


The 400 richest Americans and their terrible tax burden

The top 400′s share of the nation’s income went from 0.52% in 1992 to 1.31% in 2006—an even bigger increase than its share of taxes paid. When you chart the average tax rate paid by those in the top 400, the picture is nearly opposite



The 400 richest Americans and their terrible tax burden | TIME.com



The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.

In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes. That's the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.


Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

Just 82 of the top 400 were taxed in accord with the Buffett rule, which proposes a minimum tax of 30 percent on annual incomes greater than $1 million.


The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston | Reuters

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, you are, YOU don't understand the difference of a rate and a percentage. Got it

Your source said their rate went down, I showed you their rate went up. Sorry.

top 1% income 12.8% of total to 17.2% from 1980 to 2010
taxes from 18% of total to 40% froom 1980 to 2010
conclusion: taxes went up more than income

no country depends on 1% the way USA does
NYS and CA get 50% of their revenue from top 1%

Yes, that's why PAYROLL TAXES have been used the past 30+ years to hide the REAL cost of Gov't. $3.6+ trillion
BORROWED from the bottom 90% who pay for payroll taxes (top 10% only contribute 10% to them)



Measured as a share of family income, California’s lowest-income families pay the most in taxes. The bottom fifth of the state’s non-elderly families, with an average income of
$12,600, spend 10.2 percent of their incomes on state and local taxes.

In comparison, the wealthiest 1 percent, with an average income of $2.3 million, spend 7.4 percent of their incomes on state and local

http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2012/120413_Who_Pays_Taxes.pdf



A new state-by-state count of multimillionaires shows that some of the highest tax states created the most millionaires. The study, from UBS and Wealth-X, ranked states by their populations of people worth $30 million or more—presumably the most mobile part of the wealth chain and the most sensitive to taxes.


California was the top producer of multimillionaires over the past year, gaining more than 1,600 people worth $30 million or more. The state also has the nation's highest tax rate—13.3 percent—for people making $1 million or more.

WEIRD RIGHT?



Do high state taxes chase out millionaires?

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, you are, YOU don't understand the difference of a rate and a percentage. Got it

Your source said their rate went down, I showed you their rate went up. Sorry.

top 1% income 12.8% of total to 17.2% from 1980 to 2010
taxes from 18% of total to 40% froom 1980 to 2010
conclusion: taxes went up more than income

no country depends on 1% the way USA does
NYS and CA get 50% of their revenue from top 1%

OK, I'll concede YOU LIE

Top 1% had 6%-9% of income 1945-1980

1980 they had 8.46% of ALL US income. By 20007 it was 22.86%

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

 

[Dad2three]

First Corps skip the tax bite,

I know, corporations get to subtract COGS, employees compensation and all sorts of other deductible expenses before they pay taxes on their profit. Just awful!
They should have to pay 35% on revenue, with no deductions. Right?

second top 1% pay an Avg 21% fed tax bite.

What does that have to do with the taxes on their "income from corporate salaries"?

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

We've already discussed how S Corporations have shifted taxes from corporations to individuals.

From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

Ummmm....in 1992, the top tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

My god. Math IS hard for you, toddster. This is embarrassing. Or maybe you are just being dishonest.

Here, another source says:Wealthiest Americans paying 17 percent effective income tax rate, down 9 points since 1992.
Wealthiest Americans paying 17 percent effective income tax rate, down 9 points since 1992.

So, 17 percent in 2011, the add 9 and you have 26% in 1992. That would be a decrease of 9 divided by 26 which would equal around 35% DECREASE in tax rate between 1992 and 2011. So, there you go, me boy. Really simple math working with effective tax rates. Please, quit wasting people's time, especially those trying to tell you the truth. I know, being a con tool, you prefer to believe what you are told. But I hate people who lie to me. You con's seem to love it. As long it is what you WANT to believe. To hell with truth, eh.

But I hate people who lie to me.

And yet your lips are firmly planted on Obama's ass.........

In 1992, the top income tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

Whine to the IRS. Maybe they can help you with your confusion?

EFFECTIVE TAX RATE PAID VERSUS MARGINAL TAX RATE DUMMY. TRY to get honest, just once

 

[Rshermr]

First Corps skip the tax bite,

I know, corporations get to subtract COGS, employees compensation and all sorts of other deductible expenses before they pay taxes on their profit. Just awful!
They should have to pay 35% on revenue, with no deductions. Right?

second top 1% pay an Avg 21% fed tax bite.

What does that have to do with the taxes on their "income from corporate salaries"?

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue
1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

We've already discussed how S Corporations have shifted taxes from corporations to individuals.

From 1992 to 2007 the top 400 earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%

Ummmm....in 1992, the top tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

My god. Math IS hard for you, toddster. This is embarrassing. Or maybe you are just being dishonest.

Here, another source says:Wealthiest Americans paying 17 percent effective income tax rate, down 9 points since 1992.
Wealthiest Americans paying 17 percent effective income tax rate, down 9 points since 1992.

So, 17 percent in 2011, the add 9 and you have 26% in 1992. That would be a decrease of 9 divided by 26 which would equal around 35% DECREASE in tax rate between 1992 and 2011. So, there you go, me boy. Really simple math working with effective tax rates. Please, quit wasting people's time, especially those trying to tell you the truth. I know, being a con tool, you prefer to believe what you are told. But I hate people who lie to me. You con's seem to love it. As long it is what you WANT to believe. To hell with truth, eh.

But I hate people who lie to me.

And yet your lips are firmly planted on Obama's ass.........

In 1992, the top income tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

Whine to the IRS. Maybe they can help you with your confusion?

apparently this is too complex for you. No one, me poor ignorant tool, is talking about tax rates. They really tell us little. What is important, me boy, is the rate paid. And the wealthy do not pay the tax rate. They take advantage of these thing called deductions and credits. So, no one pays the actual rate, unless they are nuts. Now, you can not be so ignorant as to not know that. I suspect, me boy, that you have your head planted up the ass of your con tutor. Because no one else, except bat shit crazy con web sites and con tools are making the case you are trying to make. Isn't it nice to have a set of talking points to use?? Poor pathetic troll.

 

[Rshermr]

My god. Math IS hard for you, toddster. This is embarrassing. Or maybe you are just being dishonest.

So, 17 percent in 2011, the add 9 and you have 26% in 1992. That would be a decrease of 9 divided by 26 which would equal around 35% DECREASE in tax rate between 1992 and 2011. So, there you go, me boy. Really simple math working with effective tax rates. Please, quit wasting people's time, especially those trying to tell you the truth. I know, being a con tool, you prefer to believe what you are told. But I hate people who lie to me. You con's seem to love it. As long it is what you WANT to believe. To hell with truth, eh.

But I hate people who lie to me.

And yet your lips are firmly planted on Obama's ass.........

In 1992, the top income tax rate was 31%, in 2007, it was 35%.

Whine to the IRS. Maybe they can help you with your confusion?

EFFECTIVE TAX RATE PAID VERSUS MARGINAL TAX RATE DUMMY. TRY to get honest, just once

The toddster is a con tool, as we know. He is very happy to believe what he is told to believe. Pathetic. but that is what they do. And pretending to not understand what you are telling them is part of their game. No integrity at all in con tools. They simply do not care about integrity.