If republicans win in november .

[007]

IF REPUBLICANS WIN IN NOVEMBER…….

They will take away your social security, Medicare, your drug program, your Medicaid, your Obamacare, your child education grants, their SCHIP, their WIC, send illegal aliens home, cut taxes on those making $250,000 a year, balance the budget and pay down the deficit and give themselves a raise. Three out of 15 ain’t bad. You asked for it and you will get it. The shaft.

I nominate this post for a first class ticket to the "LAME ZONE."

What a load of total fucking CRAP.

 

[Claudette]

If you could really promise that would happen the GOP would win every single election in November.

I think there would be very few Seniors voting to abolish Social Security and Medicare. There would be very few poor people voting to abolish WIC and SCHIP. And there would be even less interested in reducing taxes for those making over $250,000 (2% of the households).

Americans have clearly demonstrated, they want government goodies, but they don't want to pay for them. Sad but true.

Americans do not want to be dependant on government. But when you live in a country where the economic system is so grossly unfair, where people work there butts off their entire life and get nothing in return except mere subsistence, the only alternative is to tax the wealthy (who are a bunch of thieves anyway), and return it to the working people thru government programs.

It would be a lot better if working people were paid fairly and there was no need for government assistance.

Tell me how come Americans produce 24% of the world wealth annually, but so many Americans need governement assistance? Why is the average standard of living in the U.S. down around the lowest in the industrialized world?

The answer is:

The American people are getting ripped off by the wealthy each and every minute of every day.

Awww. Good OL'Class warfare.

Whatever would we do without it. LOL

Wonder who the left, the poor and downtrodden would blame all their misfortunes on if there were no rich, wealthy people to blame.???

Food for thought. LOL

 

[Immanuel]

IF REPUBLICANS WIN IN NOVEMBER…….

They will take away your social security, Medicare, your drug program, your Medicaid, your Obamacare, your child education grants, their SCHIP, their WIC, send illegal aliens home, cut taxes on those making $250,000 a year, balance the budget and pay down the deficit and give themselves a raise. Three out of 15 ain’t bad. You asked for it and you will get it. The shaft.

I nominate this post for a first class ticket to the "LAME ZONE."

What a load of total fucking CRAP.

As you probably already know, it is typical of her. She makes posts like this and then never comes back to have a discussion about it.

Immie

 

[Misty]

IF REPUBLICANS WIN IN NOVEMBER…….

They will take away your social security, Medicare, your drug program, your Medicaid, your Obamacare, your child education grants, their SCHIP, their WIC, send illegal aliens home, cut taxes on those making $250,000 a year, balance the budget and pay down the deficit and give themselves a raise. Three out of 15 ain’t bad. You asked for it and you will get it. The shaft.

I like the shaft.

Republicans won't do this and this is why they suck.

 

[immto]

IF REPUBLICANS WIN IN NOVEMBER…….

They will take away your social security, Medicare, your drug program, your Medicaid, your Obamacare, your child education grants, their SCHIP, their WIC, send illegal aliens home, cut taxes on those making $250,000 a year, balance the budget and pay down the deficit and give themselves a raise. Three out of 15 ain’t bad. You asked for it and you will get it. The shaft.

I don't know about the shaft, but I hope they can do most of those things and hopefully more.

 

[HUGGY]

IF REPUBLICANS WIN IN NOVEMBER…….

They will take away your social security, Medicare, your drug program, your Medicaid, your Obamacare, your child education grants, their SCHIP, their WIC, send illegal aliens home, cut taxes on those making $250,000 a year, balance the budget and pay down the deficit and give themselves a raise. Three out of 15 ain’t bad. You asked for it and you will get it. The shaft.

I don't know about the shaft, but I hope they can do most of those things and hopefully more.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14Dgw_LSJ5w]YouTube - Dusty Springfield - wishin & hopin (V.RARE) 60s[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

If people here lost credibility because they posted stuff they couldn't back up you would have been laughed off of here a very long time ago.

Thanks..

Evidently, your personal credibility means nothing to you

I think the concept of a "Laugh Off" is intriguing.

Where is Rabbi NAMBLA?

Did he bail already?

 

[rdean]

Please prove he didnt.

I can make up stuff about Republicans and then say, "Prove they aren't true", but I don't have to.

.

But you do that with almost every post. No wonder since you've never met one before.

You made a slight mistake and missed half of my post. Here, let me help you:

"Republicans provide ALL the material themselves. There just isn't any need for me to lie. And remember, the poor are like animals, if you feed them, they will breed - Republican campaign slogan."

Thank you for proving my point. Much appreciated.

 

[The Rabbi]

I can make up stuff about Republicans and then say, "Prove they aren't true", but I don't have to.

.

But you do that with almost every post. No wonder since you've never met one before.

You made a slight mistake and missed half of my post. Here, let me help you:

"Republicans provide ALL the material themselves. There just isn't any need for me to lie. And remember, the poor are like animals, if you feed them, they will breed - Republican campaign slogan."

Thank you for proving my point. Much appreciated.

See, there you go again, as one great Republican once remarked to anotehr Democrat moron.

 

[rightwinger]

But you do that with almost every post. No wonder since you've never met one before.

You made a slight mistake and missed half of my post. Here, let me help you:

"Republicans provide ALL the material themselves. There just isn't any need for me to lie. And remember, the poor are like animals, if you feed them, they will breed - Republican campaign slogan."

Thank you for proving my point. Much appreciated.

See, there you go again, as one great Republican once remarked to anotehr Democrat moron.

Did you say NAMBLA? Tell the nice people about Democrats speaking at NAMBLA meetings

Come on Rabbi...you can do it

 

[The Rabbi]

You made a slight mistake and missed half of my post. Here, let me help you:

"Republicans provide ALL the material themselves. There just isn't any need for me to lie. And remember, the poor are like animals, if you feed them, they will breed - Republican campaign slogan."

Thank you for proving my point. Much appreciated.

See, there you go again, as one great Republican once remarked to anotehr Democrat moron.

Did you say NAMBLA? Tell the nice people about Democrats speaking at NAMBLA meetings

Come on Rabbi...you can do it

Did you ever prove it didn't happen?
Didn't think so.

 

[Flopper]

I think there would be very few Seniors voting to abolish Social Security and Medicare. There would be very few poor people voting to abolish WIC and SCHIP. And there would be even less interested in reducing taxes for those making over $250,000 (2% of the households).

Americans have clearly demonstrated, they want government goodies, but they don't want to pay for them. Sad but true.

Americans do not want to be dependant on government. But when you live in a country where the economic system is so grossly unfair, where people work there butts off their entire life and get nothing in return except mere subsistence, the only alternative is to tax the wealthy (who are a bunch of thieves anyway), and return it to the working people thru government programs.

It would be a lot better if working people were paid fairly and there was no need for government assistance.

Tell me how come Americans produce 24% of the world wealth annually, but so many Americans need governement assistance? Why is the average standard of living in the U.S. down around the lowest in the industrialized world?

The answer is:

The American people are getting ripped off by the wealthy each and every minute of every day.

Forgive me for this because I don't know you, but I think that is a sad way to look at life. I'm definitely not wealthy and right now I am unemployed. But, I do not blame the wealthy for the life I live now. I'm happy and surviving. I pay my taxes and therefore since I am not employed right now, I'm taking my unemployment while seeking employment.

I don't feel ripped off by the wealthy. In fact, I feel like if it weren't for the wealthy (more like semi-wealthy) who have employed me all these years, I would be a hell of a lot worse off today than I am now.

Why do you think the economic system is so unfair?

I don't know if you feel that taxing the rich into poverty is the right thing to do, but I get so tired of people saying that the rich should be taxed into poverty so that the poor can be rich. That just doesn't make sense to me. I believe we as a country have a duty to help out the needy, but I don't blame the rich for the fact that there are needy on this earth.

Immie

Immie, I certainly don’t want to see the rich taxed into poverty. But keep in mind that when congress decides to increase tax rates, those rates apply to taxable income, which excludes a multitude of deductions and exclusions, which are just not applicable to the poor such as tax free municipal bond interest and interest on both primary and second homes. They can even take advantage of tax loopholes to deduct interest on yachts and planes. Cars, and travel can be written off as business expenses. And of course there is depreciation, depletion, etc. etc… I personally know someone who has an income over a million a year and pays no taxes at all. Currently the highest tax rate for the wealthy in 38%, however most wealthy taxpayers pay far less. So don’t think for a minute that upping rates 5 or 10% on the wealthy is going drive them to the poorhouse.

Many argue that since the wealthy have more available income for investments, increasing taxes will put a damper on economic growth by reducing the capital needed for business expansion. There is some truth in this, but consider the fact that most investments from the wealthy or not so wealthy does not become capital that develops American industry. More and more new investment money ends of up developing industries in China, Indonesia, and other parts of the world where labor rates are low thus giving them a competitive edge when competing with US companies.

 

[Immanuel]

Americans do not want to be dependant on government. But when you live in a country where the economic system is so grossly unfair, where people work there butts off their entire life and get nothing in return except mere subsistence, the only alternative is to tax the wealthy (who are a bunch of thieves anyway), and return it to the working people thru government programs.

It would be a lot better if working people were paid fairly and there was no need for government assistance.

Tell me how come Americans produce 24% of the world wealth annually, but so many Americans need governement assistance? Why is the average standard of living in the U.S. down around the lowest in the industrialized world?

The answer is:

The American people are getting ripped off by the wealthy each and every minute of every day.

Forgive me for this because I don't know you, but I think that is a sad way to look at life. I'm definitely not wealthy and right now I am unemployed. But, I do not blame the wealthy for the life I live now. I'm happy and surviving. I pay my taxes and therefore since I am not employed right now, I'm taking my unemployment while seeking employment.

I don't feel ripped off by the wealthy. In fact, I feel like if it weren't for the wealthy (more like semi-wealthy) who have employed me all these years, I would be a hell of a lot worse off today than I am now.

Why do you think the economic system is so unfair?

I don't know if you feel that taxing the rich into poverty is the right thing to do, but I get so tired of people saying that the rich should be taxed into poverty so that the poor can be rich. That just doesn't make sense to me. I believe we as a country have a duty to help out the needy, but I don't blame the rich for the fact that there are needy on this earth.

Immie

Immie, I certainly don’t want to see the rich taxed into poverty. But keep in mind that when congress decides to increase tax rates, those rates apply to taxable income, which excludes a multitude of deductions and exclusions, which are just not applicable to the poor such as tax free municipal bond interest and interest on both primary and second homes. They can even take advantage of tax loopholes to deduct interest on yachts and planes. Cars, and travel can be written off as business expenses. And of course there is depreciation, depletion, etc. etc… I personally know someone who has an income over a million a year and pays no taxes at all. Currently the highest tax rate for the wealthy in 38%, however most wealthy taxpayers pay far less. So don’t think for a minute that upping rates 5 or 10% on the wealthy is going drive them to the poorhouse.

Many argue that since the wealthy have more available income for investments, increasing taxes will put a damper on economic growth by reducing the capital needed for business expansion. There is some truth in this, but consider the fact that most investments from the wealthy or not so wealthy does not become capital that develops American industry. More and more new investment money ends of up developing industries in China, Indonesia, and other parts of the world where labor rates are low thus giving them a competitive edge when competing with US companies.

Good points, but when I start paying the same or higher effective rate that someone like President Obama then I might have a problem with it. Most of the rich that I know of (from news articles) pay in the neighborhood of 20% or more. I paid 7% this year.

I'll take your word for the thing about the person you know that makes a million and paid no income taxes. That seems criminal, and I wonder if he/she did it legally. I'd like to know how he/she accomplished that task.

I don't have a problem with taxing the rich at a higher percentage than we are taxed. I do get sick and tired of so many on the left blaming the rich for all of their problems. It is not Bill Gates' fault that I am in the place that I am in. I'm where I am because of choices, good and bad, that I personally have made. I certainly don't begrudge the Bill Gates' and George Soros' of this world what they have accomplished.

Edit: and I certainly don't expect them to fork over more tax dollars simply because of the bad choices I have made.

Immie

 

[rdean]

See, there you go again, as one great Republican once remarked to anotehr Democrat moron.

Did you say NAMBLA? Tell the nice people about Democrats speaking at NAMBLA meetings

Come on Rabbi...you can do it

Did you ever prove it didn't happen?
Didn't think so.

That's an admission you were an "eye witness"?

You know that even if you "delete", they can still find your "pictures".

 

[rdean]

Forgive me for this because I don't know you, but I think that is a sad way to look at life. I'm definitely not wealthy and right now I am unemployed. But, I do not blame the wealthy for the life I live now. I'm happy and surviving. I pay my taxes and therefore since I am not employed right now, I'm taking my unemployment while seeking employment.

I don't feel ripped off by the wealthy. In fact, I feel like if it weren't for the wealthy (more like semi-wealthy) who have employed me all these years, I would be a hell of a lot worse off today than I am now.

Why do you think the economic system is so unfair?

I don't know if you feel that taxing the rich into poverty is the right thing to do, but I get so tired of people saying that the rich should be taxed into poverty so that the poor can be rich. That just doesn't make sense to me. I believe we as a country have a duty to help out the needy, but I don't blame the rich for the fact that there are needy on this earth.

Immie

Immie, I certainly don’t want to see the rich taxed into poverty. But keep in mind that when congress decides to increase tax rates, those rates apply to taxable income, which excludes a multitude of deductions and exclusions, which are just not applicable to the poor such as tax free municipal bond interest and interest on both primary and second homes. They can even take advantage of tax loopholes to deduct interest on yachts and planes. Cars, and travel can be written off as business expenses. And of course there is depreciation, depletion, etc. etc… I personally know someone who has an income over a million a year and pays no taxes at all. Currently the highest tax rate for the wealthy in 38%, however most wealthy taxpayers pay far less. So don’t think for a minute that upping rates 5 or 10% on the wealthy is going drive them to the poorhouse.

Many argue that since the wealthy have more available income for investments, increasing taxes will put a damper on economic growth by reducing the capital needed for business expansion. There is some truth in this, but consider the fact that most investments from the wealthy or not so wealthy does not become capital that develops American industry. More and more new investment money ends of up developing industries in China, Indonesia, and other parts of the world where labor rates are low thus giving them a competitive edge when competing with US companies.

Good points, but when I start paying the same or higher effective rate that someone like President Obama then I might have a problem with it. Most of the rich that I know of (from news articles) pay in the neighborhood of 20% or more. I paid 7% this year.

I'll take your word for the thing about the person you know that makes a million and paid no income taxes. That seems criminal, and I wonder if he/she did it legally. I'd like to know how he/she accomplished that task.

I don't have a problem with taxing the rich at a higher percentage than we are taxed. I do get sick and tired of so many on the left blaming the rich for all of their problems. It is not Bill Gates' fault that I am in the place that I am in. I'm where I am because of choices, good and bad, that I personally have made. I certainly don't begrudge the Bill Gates' and George Soros' of this world what they have accomplished.

Edit: and I certainly don't expect them to fork over more tax dollars simply because of the bad choices I have made.

Immie

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

No one blames the "rich" for all the problems. But the economic meltdown was hardly caused by the "poor". Moving American jobs overseas was not caused by the poor. Wall Street is not the play ground of the poor. Deregulation was not lobbied for or funded by the poor.

The poor are not tyrants and they have much less power over the rich than Republcians would have us believe. In this country, the only real power of the poor, is the ballot box. Republicans want to take even that away.

 

[Immanuel]

Immie, I certainly don’t want to see the rich taxed into poverty. But keep in mind that when congress decides to increase tax rates, those rates apply to taxable income, which excludes a multitude of deductions and exclusions, which are just not applicable to the poor such as tax free municipal bond interest and interest on both primary and second homes. They can even take advantage of tax loopholes to deduct interest on yachts and planes. Cars, and travel can be written off as business expenses. And of course there is depreciation, depletion, etc. etc… I personally know someone who has an income over a million a year and pays no taxes at all. Currently the highest tax rate for the wealthy in 38%, however most wealthy taxpayers pay far less. So don’t think for a minute that upping rates 5 or 10% on the wealthy is going drive them to the poorhouse.

Many argue that since the wealthy have more available income for investments, increasing taxes will put a damper on economic growth by reducing the capital needed for business expansion. There is some truth in this, but consider the fact that most investments from the wealthy or not so wealthy does not become capital that develops American industry. More and more new investment money ends of up developing industries in China, Indonesia, and other parts of the world where labor rates are low thus giving them a competitive edge when competing with US companies.

Good points, but when I start paying the same or higher effective rate that someone like President Obama then I might have a problem with it. Most of the rich that I know of (from news articles) pay in the neighborhood of 20% or more. I paid 7% this year.

I'll take your word for the thing about the person you know that makes a million and paid no income taxes. That seems criminal, and I wonder if he/she did it legally. I'd like to know how he/she accomplished that task.

I don't have a problem with taxing the rich at a higher percentage than we are taxed. I do get sick and tired of so many on the left blaming the rich for all of their problems. It is not Bill Gates' fault that I am in the place that I am in. I'm where I am because of choices, good and bad, that I personally have made. I certainly don't begrudge the Bill Gates' and George Soros' of this world what they have accomplished.

Edit: and I certainly don't expect them to fork over more tax dollars simply because of the bad choices I have made.

Immie

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

Thank you for the link, but if you read that, then I think you ought to admit that his secretary is a frigging nincompoop! Thirty percent on $60k? He's either being deceitful or she's just plain tax illiterate.

Edit: I mean come on! That is $18,000 on $60,000 of income. That is twice the marginal tax rate for that range of income.

Actually, I am assuming she is married and I probably should not do that. Here is the tax schedule for '09.

http://taxes.about.com/od/2009taxes/qt/2009_tax_rates.htm

Even if she is single 30% is higher than the marginal rate. And we have not even begun to discussed the standard deduction and her exemptions.

Immie

 

[rdean]

Good points, but when I start paying the same or higher effective rate that someone like President Obama then I might have a problem with it. Most of the rich that I know of (from news articles) pay in the neighborhood of 20% or more. I paid 7% this year.

I'll take your word for the thing about the person you know that makes a million and paid no income taxes. That seems criminal, and I wonder if he/she did it legally. I'd like to know how he/she accomplished that task.

I don't have a problem with taxing the rich at a higher percentage than we are taxed. I do get sick and tired of so many on the left blaming the rich for all of their problems. It is not Bill Gates' fault that I am in the place that I am in. I'm where I am because of choices, good and bad, that I personally have made. I certainly don't begrudge the Bill Gates' and George Soros' of this world what they have accomplished.

Edit: and I certainly don't expect them to fork over more tax dollars simply because of the bad choices I have made.

Immie

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

Thank you for the link, but if you read that, then I think you ought to admit that his secretary is a frigging nincompoop! Thirty percent on $60k? He's either being deceitful or she's just plain tax illiterate.

Edit: I mean come on! That is $18,000 on $60,000 of income. That is twice the marginal tax rate for that range of income.

Actually, I am assuming she is married and I probably should not do that. Here is the tax schedule for '09.

2009 Tax Rate Schedules: Marginal Ordinary Income Tax Rates for 2009

Even if she is single 30% is higher than the marginal rate. And we have not even begun to discussed the standard deduction and her exemptions.

Immie

What if she's single with no dependents. What is it you think she could "deduct"? 30% is about what I pay.

 

[Immanuel]

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner

Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary - Times Online

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

Thank you for the link, but if you read that, then I think you ought to admit that his secretary is a frigging nincompoop! Thirty percent on $60k? He's either being deceitful or she's just plain tax illiterate.

Edit: I mean come on! That is $18,000 on $60,000 of income. That is twice the marginal tax rate for that range of income.

Actually, I am assuming she is married and I probably should not do that. Here is the tax schedule for '09.

2009 Tax Rate Schedules: Marginal Ordinary Income Tax Rates for 2009

Even if she is single 30% is higher than the marginal rate. And we have not even begun to discussed the standard deduction and her exemptions.

Immie

What if she's single with no dependents. What is it you think she could "deduct"? 30% is about what I pay.

First off, the marginal tax rate for a single person at that level income is only 25%. There is no way you or she would pay more than the marginal rate. Then she has the standard deduction. In 2009 for a single person with no dependents was $5,700 which by itself would drop her taxable income to $54,300 and increase the difference in the effective rate. Personal exemptions were $3,650. Those two items which everyone gets regardless of income level would drop her Taxable income to $50,650.

Her marginal rate is still only 25% and that is only on her last $16,700. Every thing before that would have been taxed at 10 or 15 percent.

In fact, at $50,650 of taxable income (I suspect she would have had other deductions such as 401(k) her total tax would be $8,850 which is an effective rate of 14.75% (8850/60000).

If you are paying 30% effective rate of 30% and you are not EXTREMELY wealthy then you should fire your accountant, hire me, and sue your accountant.

Standard deduction and personal exemption amounts can be seen here:

2009 Tax Figures: Quick Tax Facts for 2009

Immie

 

[Richard-H]

I think there would be very few Seniors voting to abolish Social Security and Medicare. There would be very few poor people voting to abolish WIC and SCHIP. And there would be even less interested in reducing taxes for those making over $250,000 (2% of the households).

Americans have clearly demonstrated, they want government goodies, but they don't want to pay for them. Sad but true.

Americans do not want to be dependant on government. But when you live in a country where the economic system is so grossly unfair, where people work there butts off their entire life and get nothing in return except mere subsistence, the only alternative is to tax the wealthy (who are a bunch of thieves anyway), and return it to the working people thru government programs.

It would be a lot better if working people were paid fairly and there was no need for government assistance.

Tell me how come Americans produce 24% of the world wealth annually, but so many Americans need governement assistance? Why is the average standard of living in the U.S. down around the lowest in the industrialized world?

The answer is:

The American people are getting ripped off by the wealthy each and every minute of every day.

Forgive me for this because I don't know you, but I think that is a sad way to look at life. I'm definitely not wealthy and right now I am unemployed. But, I do not blame the wealthy for the life I live now. I'm happy and surviving. I pay my taxes and therefore since I am not employed right now, I'm taking my unemployment while seeking employment.

I don't feel ripped off by the wealthy. In fact, I feel like if it weren't for the wealthy (more like semi-wealthy) who have employed me all these years, I would be a hell of a lot worse off today than I am now.

Why do you think the economic system is so unfair?

I don't know if you feel that taxing the rich into poverty is the right thing to do, but I get so tired of people saying that the rich should be taxed into poverty so that the poor can be rich. That just doesn't make sense to me. I believe we as a country have a duty to help out the needy, but I don't blame the rich for the fact that there are needy on this earth.

Immie

Immie -

Instead of just accepting everything as it is and say 'hey that's life', you should try to understand the world and why things are the way they are.

Wealth does not grow on trees, it does not drop out of the sky, it is created thru hard work. Historically and currently, the people who are wealthy have not, by a long shot, done the work that created their wealth. Instead they have taken advantage of the economically disadvantaged and accumulated the wealth created by workers. This is how they profit.

Most employees create more wealth then they are paid - often times a great deal more. This is why their employers hire them.

The accumulation of wealth is the acculumation of currency and of ownership. Wealth is not accumulated thru work. Employees are denied the currency that is justly owed to them simply becuase they are economically disadvantaged - the employers can get away with it.

For the past 30 years, the unfairness in the distribution of wealth has gone back to being totally horrendous - with employees making an ever decreasing percentage of the wealth that they create. Those that work the hardest and create the most wealth are paid the least.

The only thing that counterbalances this is that the wealthy are careful to maintain social stability by, comparatively, overpaying a certain percentage of employees for their loyalty.

This forms a sycophantic class that fanatically supports the status quo. Social engineering by the wealthy is more the determinant of salary level than productivity.

 

[Immanuel]

If her taxable income is $60,000 then her total tax would be $11,187.50 and her effective rate would be somewhere below 18% depending on what her adjusted gross income. Which would be somewhere above the $60,000 + 3,650 + 5,700.

Immie