Liberals for wealth redistribution

[Meister]

Indeed. Oh, the irony. Thanks for stoppin' by.

WOW! that has to be the best retort ever.

O.....kay.......

So will you go on record agreeing with RetartedGynacologist that the top 10% pay 97% of the taxes?

What I will say is the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% pays 3%.
To me that is disproportionate, and proof of the redistribution of wealth already in place. Yet, it's not enough to the liberals. Go figure.......

 

[R.C. Christian]

As long as the tax burden is equal for the poor, middle and rich then I'm all for wealth redistribution with the intent of also cutting down the size of the federal government. Like that will ever happen.

 

[topspin]

We could and should cut the dog shit out of the military occupation budget.

 

[Jon]

We could and should cut the dog shit out of the military occupation budget.

Couldn't agree more. We waste so much money on the military, it's ridiculous.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We could and should cut the dog shit out of the military occupation budget.

Stick with the program, the Liberals in the other thread are not discussing the Budget or the military. They are telling us that they would support the illegal seizure of people's personal wealth because it is "bad" for private citizens and Corporations to have more money then THEY think they should have. Further they would redistribute that seized money through the Government.

 

[sparky]

perhaps a new way of thinking where the wealth is going would be prudent?

Slow Money: Investment strategies appropriate to the realities of the 21st century - Home

 

[topspin]

We could and should cut the dog shit out of the military occupation budget.

Stick with the program, the Liberals in the other thread are not discussing the Budget or the military. They are telling us that they would support the illegal seizure of people's personal wealth because it is "bad" for private citizens and Corporations to have more money then THEY think they should have. Further they would redistribute that seized money through the Government.

I'm a mixed breed limosine liberal, I want to keep my limosine.

 

[Gadawg73]

WTF you talkin 'bout Willis?
Everyone here is for wealth distribution. Pigs at the tit are out numbering the tits.
Everyone here claims to be a conservative but when social security, Medicare and other government benefit tit programs are out there they are first to "qualify" to get their tit for life all the while claiming "I M conservative. I earned mine."

You have no clue about what a conservative thinks....don't try and fake that you know.

I own, manage and am CEO of three corporations, employee others and pay over 30K in health and other benefits for them each and every year. The taxes I pay are twice your income yearly.
All the while you claim I am not a conservative.
You have no clue what a conservative really is. Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck have warped your brain. The sef employed business owner like me is the original American conservative. WE have our millions at risk daily.
I know what a conservative thinks Moe.
I R 1

 

[Cuyo]

WOW! that has to be the best retort ever.

O.....kay.......

So will you go on record agreeing with RetartedGynacologist that the top 10% pay 97% of the taxes?

What I will say is the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% pays 3%.
To me that is disproportionate, and proof of the redistribution of wealth already in place. Yet, it's not enough to the liberals. Go figure.......

Statistics are a funny thing. Watch:

Guy 1 made 1,000,000 last year.
Guy 2 made 100,000,
and Guy 3 made 10,000. All 3 paid 20% taxes.

Guy 1 paid $200,000, Guy 2 paid $20,000, and Guy 3 paid $2,000.

Total tax paid was $222,000. In this scenario, Guy 1 paid 90%, Guy 2 paid about 9%, and Guy 3 paid a meager 1% of the "Total Tax Burden."

The higher brackets are paying a higher share of the "Total Tax Burden" because they're controlling a disproportionate share of the wealth, not because the evil liberals are confiscating and redistributing their money. As I've just illustrated, in my scenario everyone was taxed at the exact same rate, but I could say "The top 33% of the population paid 90% of the taxes last year, while the bottom 33% paid only around 1%." And it would be technically true. Even though a flat tax was used, creative statistics make it appear that an unfair burden has been shifted to the top.

What's happening in your scenario is no different.

 

[Gadawg73]

O.....kay.......

So will you go on record agreeing with RetartedGynacologist that the top 10% pay 97% of the taxes?

What I will say is the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% pays 3%.
To me that is disproportionate, and proof of the redistribution of wealth already in place. Yet, it's not enough to the liberals. Go figure.......

Statistics are a funny thing. Watch:

Guy 1 made 1,000,000 last year.
Guy 2 made 100,000,
and Guy 3 made 10,000. All 3 paid 20% taxes.

Guy 1 paid $200,000, Guy 2 paid $20,000, and Guy 3 paid $2,000.

Total tax paid was $222,000. In this scenario, Guy 1 paid 90%, Guy 2 paid about 9%, and Guy 3 paid a meager 1% of the "Total Tax Burden."

The higher brackets are paying a higher share of the "Total Tax Burden" because they're controlling a disproportionate share of the wealth, not because the evil liberals are confiscating and redistributing their money. As I've just illustrated, in my scenario everyone was taxed at the exact same rate, but I could say "The top 33% of the population paid 90% of the taxes last year, while the bottom 33% paid only around 1%." And it would be technically true. Even though a flat tax was used, creative statistics make it appear that an unfair burden has been shifted to the top.

What's happening in your scenario is no different.

If I EARN my wealth working 70 hour weeks 7 days a week I SHOULD control it.
Shouldn't I?
Wealth is EARNED, not to be redistributed.
What is a "disproportionate share of the wealth"?
Who determines that?
If you want wealth, earn it.

 

[Ravi]

Check out this thread and note how many Liberal Democrats SUPPORT the concept of the US Government STEALING private citizens wealth. Yet they insist they are not socialist.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/124697-wealth-inequality-how-it-affects-the-economy.html

Freedom? No not if democrats had their way.

I really have no problem with my tax portion being used to pay your medical benefits.

No thanks needed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Check out this thread and note how many Liberal Democrats SUPPORT the concept of the US Government STEALING private citizens wealth. Yet they insist they are not socialist.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/124697-wealth-inequality-how-it-affects-the-economy.html

Freedom? No not if democrats had their way.

I really have no problem with my tax portion being used to pay your medical benefits.

No thanks needed.

You also have no problem with cries to take away other peoples money cause they just have to much?

 

[Cuyo]

What I will say is the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% pays 3%.
To me that is disproportionate, and proof of the redistribution of wealth already in place. Yet, it's not enough to the liberals. Go figure.......

Statistics are a funny thing. Watch:

Guy 1 made 1,000,000 last year.
Guy 2 made 100,000,
and Guy 3 made 10,000. All 3 paid 20% taxes.

Guy 1 paid $200,000, Guy 2 paid $20,000, and Guy 3 paid $2,000.

Total tax paid was $222,000. In this scenario, Guy 1 paid 90%, Guy 2 paid about 9%, and Guy 3 paid a meager 1% of the "Total Tax Burden."

The higher brackets are paying a higher share of the "Total Tax Burden" because they're controlling a disproportionate share of the wealth, not because the evil liberals are confiscating and redistributing their money. As I've just illustrated, in my scenario everyone was taxed at the exact same rate, but I could say "The top 33% of the population paid 90% of the taxes last year, while the bottom 33% paid only around 1%." And it would be technically true. Even though a flat tax was used, creative statistics make it appear that an unfair burden has been shifted to the top.

What's happening in your scenario is no different.

If I EARN my wealth working 70 hour weeks 7 days a week I SHOULD control it.
Shouldn't I?
Wealth is EARNED, not to be redistributed.
What is a "disproportionate share of the wealth"?
Who determines that?
If you want wealth, earn it.

Gadawg, after reading your posts, I look forward to discussing with you; Please don't troll me.

My point is, the statistics attempt to make it appear the top brackets are unfairly taxed. Yes, they have a higher effective rate (Unless they cheat), but not to the extent that RetGySrg and Meister attempt to make it appear.

By "Disproportionate share of the wealth," all I meant was that the reason they're paying a "Disproportionate" amount of the total tax collected, is that they are making a "Disproportionate" share of the money, relative to the amounts of the "Total tax collected" that they pay. In other words, the reason the top x% pay y% of the total tax collected is that the top x% made roughly y% of the total wages.

Let's do it again with some numbers more relative to what's happening in the States.

1 guy made 10,000,000 last year.
9 guys made 1,000,000 each.
40 guys made 100,000 each.
50 guys made 25,000 each.

Each are taxed at exactly 20%.

First guy paid $2,000,000.
next 9 paid $200,000, x 9 = $1,800,000.
next 40 paid $20,000, x 40 = $800,000.
next 50 paid $5,000, x 50 = $250,000.

Everyone was taxed identical percentages of their earnings. I could make the following statements and they would be true, using the algorithm conservatives use to make the tax burden appear unfair:
"The top 1% paid 41% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 10% paid 78% of the total tax burden last year!"
"The top 50% paid 94% of the total tax burden last year!"

Leaving of course, the bottom 50 paying only about 6%, which seems unfair if it's the only statistic you have in front of you... But the truth is, they hardly made any money, which is why their "Total tax burden" percentage is so low... Not that they were taxed at a lower rate. They were taxed at a lower rate (In the U.S., not in my example; In my example, everyone was taxed precisely equally), but not proportionate to how little tax it appears they've paid.

Does that make sense? Do you think the upper brackets should actually be taxed at a lower percentage? Because that's the only way this particular statistic would be more balanced.

 

[topspin]

I have zero doubt if you quite raping the rich the economy will boom.
that is the reason we went from 70% on the highest brackets.

 

[rdean]

Let us consider the 1950s. We started building the Interstate system then. Our rate of economic growth was very healthy. What was the tax rate then on the wealthy? On the Middle Class? On the working Poor?

The tax rate on the wealthy was 75 to 90% and they still lived in mansions and drove Rolls Royce.

If you can come to this country and become a billionaire, why not invest so that the good news keeps on coming. How does it help if the wealthy just squeeze and squeeze?

Republicans don't understand that if the "golden goose" is cooked, only the few eat once. Everyone will eventually starve.

 

[rdean]

What I will say is the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes, and the bottom 50% pays 3%.
To me that is disproportionate, and proof of the redistribution of wealth already in place. Yet, it's not enough to the liberals. Go figure.......

Statistics are a funny thing. Watch:

Guy 1 made 1,000,000 last year.
Guy 2 made 100,000,
and Guy 3 made 10,000. All 3 paid 20% taxes.

Guy 1 paid $200,000, Guy 2 paid $20,000, and Guy 3 paid $2,000.

Total tax paid was $222,000. In this scenario, Guy 1 paid 90%, Guy 2 paid about 9%, and Guy 3 paid a meager 1% of the "Total Tax Burden."

The higher brackets are paying a higher share of the "Total Tax Burden" because they're controlling a disproportionate share of the wealth, not because the evil liberals are confiscating and redistributing their money. As I've just illustrated, in my scenario everyone was taxed at the exact same rate, but I could say "The top 33% of the population paid 90% of the taxes last year, while the bottom 33% paid only around 1%." And it would be technically true. Even though a flat tax was used, creative statistics make it appear that an unfair burden has been shifted to the top.

What's happening in your scenario is no different.

If I EARN my wealth working 70 hour weeks 7 days a week I SHOULD control it.
Shouldn't I?
Wealth is EARNED, not to be redistributed.
What is a "disproportionate share of the wealth"?
Who determines that?
If you want wealth, earn it.

If you have to work that much, it's not "wealth", it's just a wage.

 

[topspin]

Let us consider the 1950s. We started building the Interstate system then. Our rate of economic growth was very healthy. What was the tax rate then on the wealthy? On the Middle Class? On the working Poor?

The tax rate on the wealthy was 75 to 90% and they still lived in mansions and drove Rolls Royce.

If you can come to this country and become a billionaire, why not invest so that the good news keeps on coming. How does it help if the wealthy just squeeze and squeeze?

Republicans don't understand that if the "golden goose" is cooked, only the few eat once. Everyone will eventually starve.

so your stance is tax them till they can't afford the manson. I don't feel it's right for them to give up enough money for someonelse's mansion even if it's spread.

 

[Gadawg73]

Let us consider the 1950s. We started building the Interstate system then. Our rate of economic growth was very healthy. What was the tax rate then on the wealthy? On the Middle Class? On the working Poor?

The tax rate on the wealthy was 75 to 90% and they still lived in mansions and drove Rolls Royce.

If you can come to this country and become a billionaire, why not invest so that the good news keeps on coming. How does it help if the wealthy just squeeze and squeeze?

Republicans don't understand that if the "golden goose" is cooked, only the few eat once. Everyone will eventually starve.

Who determines who is "wealthy"?
You, I or the government?
Currently the answer is behind door #3 and that scares THE SHIT out of me.

 

[Gadawg73]

Statistics are a funny thing. Watch:

Guy 1 made 1,000,000 last year.
Guy 2 made 100,000,
and Guy 3 made 10,000. All 3 paid 20% taxes.

Guy 1 paid $200,000, Guy 2 paid $20,000, and Guy 3 paid $2,000.

Total tax paid was $222,000. In this scenario, Guy 1 paid 90%, Guy 2 paid about 9%, and Guy 3 paid a meager 1% of the "Total Tax Burden."

The higher brackets are paying a higher share of the "Total Tax Burden" because they're controlling a disproportionate share of the wealth, not because the evil liberals are confiscating and redistributing their money. As I've just illustrated, in my scenario everyone was taxed at the exact same rate, but I could say "The top 33% of the population paid 90% of the taxes last year, while the bottom 33% paid only around 1%." And it would be technically true. Even though a flat tax was used, creative statistics make it appear that an unfair burden has been shifted to the top.

What's happening in your scenario is no different.

If I EARN my wealth working 70 hour weeks 7 days a week I SHOULD control it.
Shouldn't I?
Wealth is EARNED, not to be redistributed.
What is a "disproportionate share of the wealth"?
Who determines that?
If you want wealth, earn it.

If you have to work that much, it's not "wealth", it's just a wage.

Ok, then a wage that rises very fast monthly for the last 30 years.
Call it what you want.
It is not what you earn, it is what YOU KEEP.
And I keep a lot. Didn't catch that fish working.

 

[Cuyo]

If I EARN my wealth working 70 hour weeks 7 days a week I SHOULD control it.
Shouldn't I?
Wealth is EARNED, not to be redistributed.
What is a "disproportionate share of the wealth"?
Who determines that?
If you want wealth, earn it.

If you have to work that much, it's not "wealth", it's just a wage.

Ok, then a wage that rises very fast monthly for the last 30 years.
Call it what you want.
It is not what you earn, it is what YOU KEEP.
And I keep a lot. Didn't catch that fish working.

So what are you complaining about? Taxes now are lower than they've been for most of your working life.