Fairness Quiz

[Valox]

At any given point in time, yes, wealth is finite. In this case we are talking wealth (actually income) at the end of a tax year

Wealth and income are two very different topics.

 

[Conservative]

One of my favorites

What this really means is that the richest 10% of Americans have a larger share of available wealth than the rich in any other industrialized nation.......including Sweden

No other nation has done as much to ensure the well being of it's rich

wealth is finite?

how much is there?

At any given point in time, yes, wealth is finite. In this case we are talking wealth (actually income) at the end of a tax year

wealth and income are two different things...

Wealth | Define Wealth at Dictionary.com

a great quantity or store of money, valuable possessions, property, or other riches

Income | Define Income at Dictionary.com

the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments.

 

[rightwinger]

At any given point in time, yes, wealth is finite. In this case we are talking wealth (actually income) at the end of a tax year

Wealth and income are two very different topics.

No shit Sherlock

Imagine if we could actually tax that hidden wealth?

 

[Valox]

At any given point in time, yes, wealth is finite. In this case we are talking wealth (actually income) at the end of a tax year

Wealth and income are two very different topics.

No shit Sherlock

Imagine if we could actually tax that hidden wealth?

If you were so cognizant about this fact, then you would not have made the said comment, "In this case we are talking wealth (actually income) at the end of a tax year". Your comment reminds me of someone confusing deficits with debt and I just wanted to point out the obvious to someone who is obfuscating the obvious.

Plus, I don't believe in taxing wealth for the sake of taxing wealth, whether it is hidden or not.

 

[asaratis]

I, for one, feel sorry for all those millionaires who have to pay all those taxes on their income. Maybe if they didn't have such a disproportionate share of the income they wouldnt have to pay such a disproportionate share of the taxes

Now there's a good communist argument for you!

 

[Foxfyre]

The biggest problem with the argument of how much so and so pays in Federal Income Taxes is simply that Federal Income Taxes only account for around 40% of all Federal Revenues. When comparing to other countries, those statistics include total taxes, not just a smaller percentage of total taxes as you use in your example. The fact that you ignore payroll taxes completely creates an illusion that is not only unrealistic, it is a lie. Last of all, using statutory corporate tax rates rather than effective corporate tax rates is again very misleading. The fact is that the vast majority of American corporations have very low effective corporate tax rates. Just ask GE. And finally, you ignore the tax situation at the state level where the lowest income earners pay double to as much as four times the effective tax rate as the highest income earners in almost every state.

The biggest problem with your argument is the assumption that GE is paying a lower corporate tax rate than any other corporation. It isn't. But GE is exporting or establishing all its profitable business and jobs to other countries that are more business friendly and keeping businesses for which it can show a loss (and therefore owe no taxes) here in the U.S.A.

Our fearless leader seems incapable of comprehending this, made GE's CEO one of his chief financial advisors re job creation, and seems oblivious to the situation that exists. And of course his surrogate mainstream media under reports it and will not challenge Obama on the hypocrisy involved.

The U.S.A. has the second highest, by a tiny fraction, corporate tax rate in the world and that, coupled with a business-unfriendly EPA, other excessive and unnecessary regulation, and the administration throwing unprecedented power to the unions is driving most of our manufacturing and other good paying jobs overseas.

Until we get a President and Congress that will address and correct this situation, we will continue to have a sluggish economy and unnecessarily high unemployment or underemployment rate with no light visible at the end of the tunnel.

Instead we have a President who is gung ho to promote policy that can only make it worse.

GRAPH: Contrary To GOP Claims, U.S. Has Second Lowest Corporate Taxes In The Developed World | ThinkProgress

Please PLEASE tell me that you aren't holding up a ThinkProgress propaganda piece as evidence of anything. TP, mostly funded by George Soros the last time I checked, is one of the more extreme radical leftwing partisan sites on the internet and one of the most dishonest. I would trust DailyKos more than TP.

 

[Conservative]

Excuse me but you said the wealthy have a disproportionate share of income.

Which implies that there is only so much income to go around.

Now tell me exactly how much is that?

It implies no such thing

What it means is that in a given year the composite income of all Americans equalled some number. One group received the largest share of that income and justifiably paid the most taxes

It has nothing to do with what the composite income for next year will be.

so you agree the wealthy pay enough taxes, based on their share of said wealth? Or is 'the most' still not fair enough for you?

still waiting...

 

[rightwinger]

Wealth and income are two very different topics.

No shit Sherlock

Imagine if we could actually tax that hidden wealth?

If you were so cognizant about this fact, then you would not have made the said comment, "In this case we are talking wealth (actually income) at the end of a tax year". Your comment reminds me of someone confusing deficits with debt and I just wanted to point out the obvious to someone who is obfuscating the obvious.

Plus, I don't believe in taxing wealth for the sake of taxing wealth, whether it is hidden or not.

Why, in "fairness" I would be willing to pay 2% tax on my available wealth if the wealthy are

 

[Valox]

No shit Sherlock

Imagine if we could actually tax that hidden wealth?

If you were so cognizant about this fact, then you would not have made the said comment, "In this case we are talking wealth (actually income) at the end of a tax year". Your comment reminds me of someone confusing deficits with debt and I just wanted to point out the obvious to someone who is obfuscating the obvious.

Plus, I don't believe in taxing wealth for the sake of taxing wealth, whether it is hidden or not.

Why, in "fairness" I would be willing to pay 2% tax on my available wealth if the wealthy are

I don't understand your question nor its relevance to our discussion.

 

[JohnA]

Stephen Moore: A Fairness Quiz for the President - WSJ.com

President Obama has frequently justified his policies—and judged their outcomes—in terms of equity, justice and fairness. That raises an obvious question: How does our existing system—and his own policy record—stack up according to those criteria?

Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?

Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country's income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?

Is it fair that American corporations pay the highest statutory corporate tax rate of all other industrialized nations but Japan, which cuts its rate on April 1?

Is it fair that President Obama sends his two daughters to elite private schools that are safer, better-run, and produce higher test scores than public schools in Washington, D.C.—but millions of other families across America are denied that free choice and forced to send their kids to rotten schools?

Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money—paying a lifetime of federal, state and local taxes often climbing into the millions of dollars—must then pay an additional estate tax of 35% (and as much as 55% when the law changes next year) when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones?

Is it fair that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, former Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel and other leading Democrats who preach tax fairness underpaid their own taxes?

Is it fair that after the first three years of Obamanomics, the poor are poorer, the poverty rate is rising, the middle class is losing income, and some 5.5 million fewer Americans have jobs today than in 2007?

Is it fair that roughly 88% of political contributions from supposedly impartial network television reporters, producers and other employees in 2008 went to Democrats?

Is it fair that the three counties with America's highest median family income just happen to be located in the Washington, D.C., metro area?

Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is "subsidized"?

Is it fair that those who work full-time jobs (and sometimes more) to make ends meet have to pay taxes to support up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits for those who don't work?

Is it fair that those who took out responsible mortgages and pay them each month have to see their tax dollars used to subsidize those who acted recklessly, greedily and sometimes deceitfully in taking out mortgages they now can't afford to repay?

Is it fair that thousands of workers won't have jobs because the president sided with environmentalists and blocked the shovel-ready Keystone XL oil pipeline?

Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama's largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees on their investments in renewable energy projects that went bust?

Is it fair that federal employees receive benefits that are nearly 50% higher than those of private-sector workers whose taxes pay their salaries, according to the Congressional Budget Office?

Is it fair that soon almost half the federal budget will take income from young working people and redistribute it to old non-working people, even though those over age 65 are already among the wealthiest Americans?

Is it fair that in 27 states workers can be compelled to join a union in order to keep their jobs?

Is it fair that nearly four out of 10 American households now pay no federal income tax at all—a number that has risen every year under Mr. Obama?

Is it fair that Boeing, a private company, was threatened by a federal agency when it sought to add jobs in a right-to-work state rather than in a forced-union state?

Is it fair that our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids—who never voted for Mr. Obama—will have to pay off the $5 trillion of debt accumulated over the past four years, without any benefits to them?

The Presidents answer: Yes, because I say so.

ANSWER no it isnt fair but who said politics was
each side tells you what you want to hear ,and then bowed down to whomever funds their campaign

both parties LIE .........

 

[g5000]

So many fouls, so few yellow flags.

Is it fair that after the first three years of Obamanomics, the poor are poorer, the poverty rate is rising, the middle class is losing income, and some 5.5 million fewer Americans have jobs today than in 2007?

Now I want you to pay REAL close attention to what a fucking piece of smoke and mirrors that statement is.

In January 2007, there were 7.0 million unemployed people in America.

Who was President in January 2007? Anyone? Anyone?

In January 2009, there were 11.6 million unemployed in America.

Who was STILL President up until January 2009? Anyone? Anyone?

So we see that in January 2009, 4.6 million people had fewer jobs than in January 2007.

Whose watch was that on? Anyone? Anyone?

We find that in January 2012, there are 12.8 million unemployed in America, and the rate has been trending down.

So what do we have, boys and girls? We have a piece of shit propaganda which tries to lay 4.6 million of Bush's employment losses on Obama!

I guess it didn't sound bad enough to be honest and say, "Some 1.2 million fewer Americans have jobs today than when Obama took office."

Gosh. That totally pales next to Bush's 4.6 million in just two years!

You had to try and blame Obama retroactively for Bush's gigantic fuckup. And now you are busted.

It takes GIGANTIC brass fucking balls to call that a "fairness quiz"!!!

Positively Orwellian.

You assholes completely blow your own integrity out of the water when you pull stunts like that, with no fucking help from liberals.

 

[Skull Pilot]

At any given point in time, yes, wealth is finite. In this case we are talking wealth (actually income) at the end of a tax year

Wealth and income are two very different topics.

No shit Sherlock

Imagine if we could actually tax that hidden wealth?

All wealth has already been taxed at least once. How many more times do you want to tax it

 

[Skull Pilot]

. Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country's income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?

One of my favorites

What this really means is that the richest 10% of Americans have a larger share of available wealth than the rich in any other industrialized nation.......including Sweden

No other nation has done as much to ensure the well being of it's rich

Or it means that more of the population pays a higher percentage of taxes than we do here in the USA.

 

[g5000]

Stephen Moore: A Fairness Quiz for the President - WSJ.com

Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?

There is very little data about the distribution of wealth in America. There is one source, the Survey of Consumer Finances, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Board, that does provide data from 1983.

These data suggest that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families. The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%.

Wealth Distribution

You're right. The top ten percent own 71% of the wealth but only pay 67% of the taxes. That is NOT fair.

 

[g5000]

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.

Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Skull Pilot]

Stephen Moore: A Fairness Quiz for the President - WSJ.com

Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?

There is very little data about the distribution of wealth in America. There is one source, the Survey of Consumer Finances, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Board, that does provide data from 1983.

These data suggest that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families. The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%.

Wealth Distribution

You're right. The top ten percent own 71% of the wealth but only pay 67% of the taxes. That is NOT fair.

There is no wealth tax.

At least get your vocabulary straight.

The tax being referenced here is federal income tax. So 10% of tax payer pay 70% of all income taxes while 50% of taxpayers pay about 2% of all income taxes.

We have one of the most progressive income tax schedules in the world yet people like you want to make the people already paying the lion's share pay more.

 

[xotoxi]

Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country's income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?

Why is this?


Please explain.

 

[g5000]

Stephen Moore: A Fairness Quiz for the President - WSJ.com

There is very little data about the distribution of wealth in America. There is one source, the Survey of Consumer Finances, sponsored by the Federal Reserve Board, that does provide data from 1983.

These data suggest that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families. The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%.

Wealth Distribution

You're right. The top ten percent own 71% of the wealth but only pay 67% of the taxes. That is NOT fair.

There is no wealth tax.

At least get your vocabulary straight.

The tax being referenced here is federal income tax. So 10% of tax payer pay 70% of all income taxes while 50% of taxpayers pay about 2% of all income taxes.

We have one of the most progressive income tax schedules in the world yet people like you want to make the people already paying the lion's share pay more.

No. What I want to see is a total overhaul of our tax system. Elimination of most deductions and tax breaks. Major reform.

 

[xotoxi]

The tax being referenced here is federal income tax. So 10% of tax payer pay 70% of all income taxes while 50% of taxpayers pay about 2% of all income taxes.

The income tax is a tax of the INCOME not the taxpayer.


So, you should look at the combined income of all of those 10% and compare it to the combined income of the other 90%. Then we'll be able to determine if the 70% is fair or unfair.

 

[g5000]

The tax being referenced here is federal income tax. So 10% of tax payer pay 70% of all income taxes while 50% of taxpayers pay about 2% of all income taxes.

The income tax is a tax of the INCOME not the taxpayer.


So, you should look at the combined income of all of those 10% and compare it to the combined income of the other 90%. Then we'll be able to determine if the 70% is fair or unfair.

The reason the figure is skewed heavily toward the top ten percent is because half of Americans pay no federal income tax whatsoever. So the other half pays 100 percent of the federal income tax.

You have to wonder why the author is not whining about that and is instead of just focusing on the top ten percent.

It is for the same reason as the unemployment thing. The figure sounds more out of whack when it is given in an information vacuum, and you sound like a boob if you bitch about the lower half not paying taxes.

Everyone has an agenda.