Genius Obama says rich must pay their fair share

[francoHFW]

God you dittoheads are dumb...Marxist is a tipoff...

 

[LordBrownTrout]

God you dittoheads are dumb...Marxist is a tipoff...

What da fair share?

 

[rightwinger]

I guess no one told him that the top 1% pay 38% of all Federal income taxes or that $200,000 does not make you rich when combined taxes already take $100,000 and your mortgage takes $70,000 for an average house on East or West Coast.

We have been cutting back on the taxes the rich have paid for 30 years. During that time we have accumulated $14 trillion in debt. Guess what? It ain't working

$200,000 does not make ya rich. But guess what? It was Republicans who put them into the same tax bracket as the super wealthy. Why? So that they could bitch about the poor guy making $200,000 not being rich and hold down the taxes paid by a guy making $20 mil

 

[asterism]

yes and diminish their ability to create jobs

And there's another myth.

The guy signing the paychecks doesn't "create" the jobs he's signing the checks for. The consumers who buy the products that the employee will produce with his labor, they're the ones who created the job. If there was no market for the products, the employee would get laid off. If the market increased, someone else would be hired.

The rich don't create jobs. The middle class and working class, who represent the bulk of consumers, create jobs.

That's not necessarily true. The business owners who innovate and either provide greater value for services (cell phone plans with free long distance, a novel idea 20 years ago started by a company run in a garage) or provide new products and services (facebook) create jobs.

Business owners that adjust to market demand being ignored by large organizations (eBay started out like that) create jobs and entire ecosystems (PayPal started in a spare office).

The middle class didn't create the jobs provided by those companies. The middle class was perfectly happy going along with whatever was available at the time. The innovators created the jobs.

 

[Brutus]

how can they be undertaxed when they pay all of the tax?????????
See how easy thinking can be?

Apparently it requires a good deal more effort than you are giving it.

so then why be so afraid to answer the question?



what?????????[/quote]

Statistical inversion. That's the fallacy involving using the wrong categories to ask a question. You're asking "what share of the total tax burden is paid by the rich?" when you should instead be asking "what share of their income do the rich pay?"

but you forgot to say why you feel that way? Why should the rich pay more to the government when they use less of it and need less of it?
They are not dependent on entitlements like SS and Medicare

You do see that these are not the same question, right?

of course but so what?????????

The reason that the rich pay such a large share of the total income tax burden is not because they're taxed at a high rate, but simply because they hog such a large share of the total income.

why "hog" when they earn it in voluntary transactions? People love what Steve Jobs sells or they would not buy it? We depend on the rich. They got is from the stone age to here, not the Girl Scouts. We need to help them not hurt them! Do you think if Apple fails the middle class will get the money Apple hogs?? See why we are sure the liberal will have a lower IQ

A huge share of the total income = a huge share of the total income tax. It has nothing to do with whether they are taxed fairly or not, merely how skewed our income distribution is in this country.

its skewed for many reason that you would not be able to understand, but mostly because people like Jobs make a skewed contribution to our survival. Do you want to diminish his effort and creativity as well as the money he makes??

What share of the total income tax is paid by the rich means nothing. Zip. Nada. Squat.

sorry dear, since they pay nearly 100% of the total paid it means a great great deal!!! In fact, it is the lifeblood for all those dependent on our rich entitlement system!!

It's not even worth talking about. Instead, we need to talk about what share of their total income they pay in taxes. That will tell us:

1) How much more they can pay, if necessary, before they are seriously inconvenienced.

we are seriously inconvenienced by every penny the libtards get because it transfers money from the most productive to the least productive

2) Whether they pay a larger or smaller share of their income than the non-rich, and by how much.

they should pay an equal dollar amount or less since they are the producers for us all, and since they use the entitlements the least!! THe Soviets tried your backwards way and 40 million slowly starved to death.

3) If taxes must be raised, how much it will hurt the rich to tax them, compared to how much it would hurt to raise the taxes of the non-rich.

it will hurt the rich and poor since it is the rich who create and sustain the economy. You don't think before you post do you?

These are the important things to consider when asking whether to raise taxes on the rich, along with the state of the federal budget and what we need to spend revenues on. And none of them can be answered by asking how much of the total tax burden is paid by the rich.

violent liberal theft of private property through government as if you're somehow entitled to it is anti-American and very stupid too. The more you take capital from those who know how to use it for those who don't the poorer everyone gets. Thats so far above your IQ but I do try!

 

[Mr.Nick]

Or to make it real easy and understandable Kim Jong-Il is playing "The Sims" with an entire country and Jimmy Carter is content with that and goes to visit his friend Kim Jong-il on a regular basis sharing cups of booze while the North Koreans are eating grass...

Carter and Clinton are responsible for crimes to aid against humanity..

Both would be charged in violation of the Geneva Convention for their actions.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What's the fair share?

 

[WillowTree]

Yeah, what's the fair share?

they want it ALL buddy, the greedly little commies.

 

[asterism]

I guess no one told him that the top 1% pay 38% of all Federal income taxes or that $200,000 does not make you rich when combined taxes already take $100,000 and your mortgage takes $70,000 for an average house on East or West Coast.

We have been cutting back on the taxes the rich have paid for 30 years.

That's not true. We've been cutting the top marginal rates paid, not the share in taxes "the rich" have been paying.

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

During that time we have accumulated $14 trillion in debt. Guess what? It ain't working

Overspending is the problem, not tax receipts.

$200,000 does not make ya rich. But guess what? It was Republicans who put them into the same tax bracket as the super wealthy. Why? So that they could bitch about the poor guy making $200,000 not being rich and hold down the taxes paid by a guy making $20 mil

True. I'm not a fan of the GOP's tax policies. The GOP is the clear lessor of two evils. However Obama seems to have no problem going along. Is that just so he can blame someone else?

 

[Brutus]

consumers, create jobs. Taxing the rich does not kill jobs.

idiotic!!!!!! 5,000 years ago everyone farmed by hand, and everyone was a consumer. No progress had been made for 10,000 years.

Then, a Steve Jobs type invented the plow and the consumers had something to consume and new jobs at which to earn more money.

Taxing Steve Jobs or venture capitalists kills jobs. It gives them less money not more money to do what they do!!!!!!!! Was that simple enough for you???

 

[Dragon]

That's not necessarily true. The business owners who innovate and either provide greater value for services (cell phone plans with free long distance, a novel idea 20 years ago started by a company run in a garage) or provide new products and services (facebook) create jobs.

That doesn't refute what I said. There must be a potential market for those products, or there is no incentive to innovate at all. By "potential" market what I mean is that there are enough people with enough money to buy the products, if they knew about them and wanted them. Innovators meet that potential demand. It is still the demand that creates jobs.

In a way, though, we're talking about two different senses of "create." What I am looking at is the question: "Who do we want to have more money in order to spark more hiring?" The answer is the consumers, whether we are talking about innovative products or old-hat ones.

 

[Brutus]

It is still the demand that creates jobs.

demand is common, constant and eternal. Where there are people there is demand. Conversely, those who supply new things got us from the stone age to here. Merely demanding electricity or running water, for example, does not help mankind, but supplying those things does. It is what saintly Republicans do. This is what moves history!

Now the silly liberal knows his ABC's...... and why the Founders intended to make liberalism illegal with the Constitution.

 

[mudwhistle]

What a Genius......

Hey look at me!!!!​

 

[Dragon]

so then why be so afraid to answer the question?

I did answer the question. They can be undertaxed while at the same time paying a large share of the total taxes, because the two have nothing to do with each other, and your entire line of reasoning is fallacious.

but you forgot to say why you feel that way? Why should the rich pay more to the government when they use less of it and need less of it?

Because they can. Taxes are not a fee-for-use. They are a social obligation that all of us have to the community. Those who gain more from the community should pay more to support the public services that the community needs and wants.

of course but so what?????????

So the question I asked is the right one, and the one you asked, not being the same question, is the wrong one.

why "hog" when they earn it in voluntary transactions? People love what Steve Jobs sells or they would not buy it?

Does Steve Jobs produce iPhones and iMacs and all that stuff all by himself? Does Apple have no employees? No. It is Apple, not Jobs, that produces those products, and Apple means everyone who works for Apple. That Jobs owns Apple (or whatever share of it he does) is merely a legal fiction.

We depend on the rich.

On the contrary, they depend on us. The rich don't create jobs, consumers create jobs, which mostly means the middle class and working class. Look past the name on your paycheck to understand the real reason why you even have one: not because some fat cat "gave" you a job out of the goodness of his heart, but because people want to buy the products your labor produces.

THe Soviets tried your backwards way and 40 million slowly starved to death.

First, the Soviet Union had no taxes. Second, the way they organized their economy in no way resembles the way I would. Third, Stalin's engineered famines (which killed nowhere near 40 million by the way) did not arise from economic inefficiency but from cold and cruel calculation as the price of industrializing very, very fast so the country would be able to fight the Nazis when they had to.

The more you take capital from those who know how to use it for those who don't the poorer everyone gets.

Wrong. As I said above, the factor that creates jobs isn't money in the pockets of the rich, it's consumer demand. Take about half of the income from the top 1% of the country and spread it equally among everyone else, and the economy would prosper dramatically.

The reason for this, again, is that businesses hire because there is demand for the products to be produced, NOT because they happen to have money lying around. The question is not whether they CAN invest in new jobs, but whether they WILL. Money in their pockets doesn't affect this. Money in the pockets of a great many ordinary people, however, does.

 

[Dragon]

demand is common, constant and eternal.

No. Demand is a variable. It's the desire to buy plus the ability to buy. If my income doubles, so will my ability to buy goods. That will increase demand.

By the way, do you know what the name "Brutus" means in Latin?

 

[Mr Natural]

LET'S TAX THE SHIT OUT OF THE RICH!!!!!" [/FONT][/COLOR][/B][/I][/SIZE]

yes and diminish their ability to create jobs, but, we can always hope the Girl Scouts will fill the void with new jobs and products!!

And a fine job they're doing at that.

 

[Mr Natural]

demand is common, constant and eternal.

No. Demand is a variable. It's the desire to buy plus the ability to buy. If my income doubles, so will my ability to buy goods. That will increase demand.

By the way, do you know what the name "Brutus" means in Latin?

Bullshit artist?

 

[rightwinger]

I guess no one told him that the top 1% pay 38% of all Federal income taxes or that $200,000 does not make you rich when combined taxes already take $100,000 and your mortgage takes $70,000 for an average house on East or West Coast.

We have been cutting back on the taxes the rich have paid for 30 years.

That's not true. We've been cutting the top marginal rates paid, not the share in taxes "the rich" have been paying.

National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?

During that time we have accumulated $14 trillion in debt. Guess what? It ain't working

Overspending is the problem, not tax receipts.

$200,000 does not make ya rich. But guess what? It was Republicans who put them into the same tax bracket as the super wealthy. Why? So that they could bitch about the poor guy making $200,000 not being rich and hold down the taxes paid by a guy making $20 mil

True. I'm not a fan of the GOP's tax policies. The GOP is the clear lessor of two evils. However Obama seems to have no problem going along. Is that just so he can blame someone else?

Cutting taxes without a corresponding cut in spending is the problem. We have been operating under the myth that a tax cut will spur the economy and always pay for itself

 

[Oldstyle]

Yea, but how much do they make using roads built by middle class? Using bridges and electricity from a grid and dams built by a middle class? Making money from factories built and staffed with the middle class? Being protected by firemen and police from the middle class? In a country where the middle class send their young off to war to protect that wealth the rich accrued with the help of, you guess it, the middle class?

The middle class paid with blood, sweat and the lives of their children. The rich can pay their fair share.

You know you right wingers aren't rich. But you are fools.

This could quite possibly be one of the dumber posts I've seen here. The Middle Class people that you've described in the above made a very nice living while doing all of those things. Or at least they did until the economy imploded. Since then they're making less and less because this Administration is clueless when it comes to economics and keeps doing things to prolong this recession rather than getting out of the way and letting the private sector prosper. Once that happens, Middle Class people will go back to making a nice living again. Or we could keep on the way we have been for the past two and a half years while we tax the crap out of the wealthy and then EVERYONE will be broke and we won't have the money left to finance a recovery. And won't THAT be swell!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

so then why be so afraid to answer the question?

I did answer the question. They can be undertaxed while at the same time paying a large share of the total taxes, because the two have nothing to do with each other, and your entire line of reasoning is fallacious.

but you forgot to say why you feel that way? Why should the rich pay more to the government when they use less of it and need less of it?

Because they can. Taxes are not a fee-for-use. They are a social obligation that all of us have to the community. Those who gain more from the community should pay more to support the public services that the community needs and wants.



So the question I asked is the right one, and the one you asked, not being the same question, is the wrong one.



Does Steve Jobs produce iPhones and iMacs and all that stuff all by himself? Does Apple have no employees? No. It is Apple, not Jobs, that produces those products, and Apple means everyone who works for Apple. That Jobs owns Apple (or whatever share of it he does) is merely a legal fiction.



On the contrary, they depend on us. The rich don't create jobs, consumers create jobs, which mostly means the middle class and working class. Look past the name on your paycheck to understand the real reason why you even have one: not because some fat cat "gave" you a job out of the goodness of his heart, but because people want to buy the products your labor produces.

THe Soviets tried your backwards way and 40 million slowly starved to death.

First, the Soviet Union had no taxes. Second, the way they organized their economy in no way resembles the way I would. Third, Stalin's engineered famines (which killed nowhere near 40 million by the way) did not arise from economic inefficiency but from cold and cruel calculation as the price of industrializing very, very fast so the country would be able to fight the Nazis when they had to.

The more you take capital from those who know how to use it for those who don't the poorer everyone gets.

Wrong. As I said above, the factor that creates jobs isn't money in the pockets of the rich, it's consumer demand. Take about half of the income from the top 1% of the country and spread it equally among everyone else, and the economy would prosper dramatically.

The reason for this, again, is that businesses hire because there is demand for the products to be produced, NOT because they happen to have money lying around. The question is not whether they CAN invest in new jobs, but whether they WILL. Money in their pockets doesn't affect this. Money in the pockets of a great many ordinary people, however, does.

You have an interesting take on history. One of the greatest famines in the Soviet Union occurred in 1947 two years after WWII had ended. As for why the famines occurred? The famines of the early 1930's took place because it was Stalin's belief that peasants were secretly holding back on grain they had harvested. He imposed draconian levels of grain collection based on that belief and millions starved to death as a result. Stalin also used famine to weaken potential resistance to the Soviet State as he did in the Ukraine in 1932 and '33.
When you maintain that the Soviets had no taxes it's rather misleading. The grain collection in a mostly agrarian society served as a de facto tax, as the collected grain was sold as an export to get the USSR needed capital to expand their industrial base.