Taxes: 101

Because dumbocrats are so profoundly stupid, please allow me to explain this simple chart to you.

In each section, the bar on the left (since most dumbocrats can't tell their left from their right, they color-coded it for you - so the left is the gray bar) is the percentage of wealth that group has accumulated (in this case, the first one is the top 1%). The bar on the right (again, color-coded for the dumbocrats - so look for the orange bar) is the percentage of taxes that group has paid.

So in the first example, the Top 1% of the wealthy (think Bill Gates level) has accumulated 13% of the wealth. Now, if they were to pay their "fair share" like the idiot liberal dumbocrats scream they want, then they should pay 13% of the taxes. Instead, they pay 22% of the taxes.

In each case, the taxes (ie bar on the right) exceeds the wealth earned (ie bar on the left) for the upper class. It's not until you get to the middle class that this trend ends.

So you see, as I've long been saying, in order for the wealthy to pay their "fair share", we would have to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy.

This demonstrates how profoundly stupid the dumbocrats are....

OK you sniveling little bitch. You have my attention for a few seconds.

Your chart is nonsense in that your have a 5 year olds concept of "fair share".

Here is a primer for your 5 year old brain on "fair share".

When rich kid "Johnny" throws a party at "Johnnies" parents palacial estates for himself and a hundred of his closest friends and the cost is in the thousands of dollars for the pony rental and the clowns that twist balloons and the band and all the goodies... His daddy pays for it .. if Johnnie want's to invite his friend at school "Larry" who doesn't enjoy the extreme wealth of Johnnies parents he doesn't demand "Larry" to cough up a hundred bucks to join the party when he rings the bell at the palacial estates. Johnny knows that the wealth means nothing if he cannot share it sometimes. Johnnie knows that is fair.

See Johnnies dad owns the factory in their town. He got the money to start the company from his rich daddy but he didn't have the ability to make the widgets they wanted to manufacture so he hired Larry's dad and Larry's dad worked real hard and improved the widget and sales just soared from all the hard work. All that hard work by Larry's dad and hundreds more like him made Johnnies dad's company very wealthy. Johnnies dad couldn't have been more gratefull to his employees and to the town so he pours some of his wealth back into the town in appreciation. He does it because it is "fair".
 
So the rich and powerful conspire to keep the middle class and the low income working class and the poor as poor as possible,

and THEN you want the rich and powerful to pass off their tax burden to the same people they've made as poor as possible?

What century do you think this is?

Actually, what century do you think this is? We have very easy to reach charts, direct from the CBO, that clearly indicates the wealthy are paying far beyond their "fair share" and then you just arbitrarily yell "they are passing off their tax burden"?!?!

Seriously, all you are doing is proving yourself to be a mountain of misinformation right now. You're credibility is actually below zero right now.

I don't remember granting you the title of chief arbiter of what's fair and what isn't.

Oh, but you and the dumbocrats are?!?!? When 20% are paying 70% that is so unfair. And you guys want them to pay more (the very definition of communists).
 
So the rich and powerful conspire to keep the middle class and the low income working class and the poor as poor as possible,

and THEN you want the rich and powerful to pass off their tax burden to the same people they've made as poor as possible?

What century do you think this is?

Actually, what century do you think this is? We have very easy to reach charts, direct from the CBO, that clearly indicates the wealthy are paying far beyond their "fair share" and then you just arbitrarily yell "they are passing off their tax burden"?!?!

Seriously, all you are doing is proving yourself to be a mountain of misinformation right now. You're credibility is actually below zero right now.

You're the one who said we should raise taxes on the poor.

Yes - because you guys whine about "paying your fair share". Well, it's pretty clear who is not paying their fair share.
 
If the goal is to get everyone to pay higher taxes...which I guess is the point of the OP; we should go over the "cliff" I suppose.

Its all going to be okay. Don't worry.
 
How do you propose to get taxes out of people without earnings? or out of people who work, but only earn enough for basic necessities?

That question was answered 246 years ago by someone far smarter than either one of us:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." - Benjamin Franklin (1766)

In short - if you want to get someone out of poverty, make them uncomfortable in their poverty.

As long as we continue to coddle and provide, they will continue to be the parasites eating away at this nation like cancer.

Whatever we give them, tax them 35% (on all food, welfare, healthcare, etc.). I'll bet you two things: 1.) They won't be for tax hikes any more, and, 2.) They'll go find a job when everything they are handed is deduced by more than 1/3.

Or we could just be like much of Africa, where the poor are given little or nothing,

and now, those countries have no poor people, because the pain of being poor made them all run out and get good jobs!!

You're an idiot.

You just don't like the truth (typical of the dumbocrats who prefer propaganda).
 
If the goal is to get everyone to pay higher taxes...which I guess is the point of the OP; we should go over the "cliff" I suppose.

Its all going to be okay. Don't worry.

Actually, that wasn't the point. The point is, the left (in their infinite stupidity) is literally crushing the successful with taxes while crying "you don't pay your fair share, we need to raise taxes".

The facts clearly prove otherwise. But then again, you guys always were adverse to the facts.
 
That question was answered 246 years ago by someone far smarter than either one of us:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." - Benjamin Franklin (1766)

In short - if you want to get someone out of poverty, make them uncomfortable in their poverty.

As long as we continue to coddle and provide, they will continue to be the parasites eating away at this nation like cancer.

Whatever we give them, tax them 35% (on all food, welfare, healthcare, etc.). I'll bet you two things: 1.) They won't be for tax hikes any more, and, 2.) They'll go find a job when everything they are handed is deduced by more than 1/3.

Or we could just be like much of Africa, where the poor are given little or nothing,

and now, those countries have no poor people, because the pain of being poor made them all run out and get good jobs!!

You're an idiot.

You just don't like the truth (typical of the dumbocrats who prefer propaganda).

You're claiming that if the poor don't get any help, they'll all magically go out and find jobs,

and get jobs.

Where has that ever happened? What country has ever solved their poverty problems by ending all aid to the poor?
 
Actually, what century do you think this is? We have very easy to reach charts, direct from the CBO, that clearly indicates the wealthy are paying far beyond their "fair share" and then you just arbitrarily yell "they are passing off their tax burden"?!?!

Seriously, all you are doing is proving yourself to be a mountain of misinformation right now. You're credibility is actually below zero right now.

You're the one who said we should raise taxes on the poor.

Yes - because you guys whine about "paying your fair share". Well, it's pretty clear who is not paying their fair share.

You have no clue what fair is.

You really think it's unfair that a high income earner would pay more in taxes than a low income earner?
 
Last edited:
If the goal is to get everyone to pay higher taxes...which I guess is the point of the OP; we should go over the "cliff" I suppose.

Its all going to be okay. Don't worry.

That is not the goal. The goal is to stop subsidizing the rich by allowing them to actually pay a LOWER TAX RATE than the middle class regardless of the illusion of the progressive marginal tax chart.

When you pay a lower percent tax than someone else, that someone else is subsidizing you.
 
Income Taxes only go towards paying the INTEREST on the National Debt, nothing else.

If Congress would control the money supply, instead of the Privately Owned Federal Reserve, we wouldn't have to pay that Interest or Income Tax.

No one would.
 
Facts from the IRS: From 2001 to 2007 the people with the highest income got the biggest percentage cuts in their actual tax payments. The middle class had to subsidize the rich even more than before. It is time to end the tax subsidy to the rich. The middle class is tired of carrying your fat ass.

8244746311_852bec828c_k.jpg
 
Last edited:
Because dumbocrats are so profoundly stupid, please allow me to explain this simple chart to you.

In each section, the bar on the left (since most dumbocrats can't tell their left from their right, they color-coded it for you - so the left is the gray bar) is the percentage of wealth that group has accumulated (in this case, the first one is the top 1%). The bar on the right (again, color-coded for the dumbocrats - so look for the orange bar) is the percentage of taxes that group has paid.

So in the first example, the Top 1% of the wealthy (think Bill Gates level) has accumulated 13% of the wealth. Now, if they were to pay their "fair share" like the idiot liberal dumbocrats scream they want, then they should pay 13% of the taxes. Instead, they pay 22% of the taxes.

In each case, the taxes (ie bar on the right) exceeds the wealth earned (ie bar on the left) for the upper class. It's not until you get to the middle class that this trend ends.

So you see, as I've long been saying, in order for the wealthy to pay their "fair share", we would have to drastically reduce taxes on the wealthy.

This demonstrates how profoundly stupid the dumbocrats are....

OK you sniveling little bitch. You have my attention for a few seconds.

Your chart is nonsense in that your have a 5 year olds concept of "fair share". (Sadly, you have a Marxists concept of "fair share" - which is actually beneath that of a 5 year old. See, even a 5 year old knows that it is not right to steal what does not belong to you).

Here is a primer for your 5 year old brain on "fair share".

When rich kid "Johnny" throws a party at "Johnnies" parents palacial estates for himself and a hundred of his closest friends and the cost is in the thousands of dollars for the pony rental and the clowns that twist balloons and the band and all the goodies... His daddy pays for it .. if Johnnie want's to invite his friend at school "Larry" who doesn't enjoy the extreme wealth of Johnnies parents he doesn't demand "Larry" to cough up a hundred bucks to join the party when he rings the bell at the palacial estates. (Even in your completely nonsensical analogy, you didn't have the government forcing "Johnny" to share his party and allow others in against his will. This is part of the reason your analogy is so absurd - just like your uneducated ideology. Johnny is sharing of HIS OWN FREE WILL - which is what America was built on and intended to be for eternity. Sadly, little loser parasites like yourself, unable or unwilling to succeed in this world, have decided like good little communists that free will is bad and it's time to take by force). Johnny knows that the wealth means nothing if he cannot share it sometimes. (Johnny doesn't know that - it's only in your nonsensical story, by an uneducated marxist, that Johnny suddenly feels this way). Johnnie knows that is fair. (Johnny doesn't think that's "fair" - it's only in your nonsensical story, by an uneducated marxist, that Johnny suddenly feels this way)

See Johnnies dad owns the factory in their town. He got the money to start the company from his rich daddy but he didn't have the ability to make the widgets they wanted to manufacture so he hired Larry's dad and Larry's dad worked real hard and improved the widget and sales just soared from all the hard work (Well, since Larry was hired to do the work, then he did exactly what he was hired for and it owed nothing more. Additionally, if Larry is so fuck'n talented at making widgets, then he should start his own widget company right out of his garage, just like Steve Jobs literally did. Just like Steve Wozniak literally did. Just like Bill Gates literally did. Just like Paul Allen literally did. Just like many other billionaire's and millionaire's did. Hell, Michael Dell started making pc's out of his DORM ROOM in college. And by the way, Jobs, Wozniak and Dell were "MANUFACTURING" computers - all with out a factory. See, it's the only the "woe is me", defeated, pitty-party cry baby assholes like you who think you need hundreds of millions of dollars and a factory to start a company. The rest of the world does it right out of what ever place they are living and later purchase their own plant from the money they earned). All that hard work by Larry's dad and hundreds more like him made Johnnies dad's company very wealthy. (Typical, Johnny' dad takes all of the risk, puts in all of the long 90 hour work weeks, and all you do is crow about the asshole standing on an assembly line only putting in 40 hours a week. It's because you're a jealous, envious, spiteful little man with real issues when it comes to self worth). Johnnies dad couldn't have been more gratefull to his employees and to the town so he pours some of his wealth back into the town in appreciation. (Interesting, once again he is not being forced by government to "pour some of his wealth back into the town" like happens in the real world. See how fuck'n stupid you really are?). He does it because it is "fair" (There is NOTHING "fair" about it. He does it because he is a good person - NOT because it is "fair" you ignorant marxist).

So, as usual, you make a completely irrelevant point with a nonsensical analogy that doesn't even remotely apply to the real world. Had your analogy shown that "little Johnny's dad" was forced by government to throw the party and "share the wealth", then we could have an honest discussion. But then again, if you had done that, you would have had to admit that you're a marxist and you support redistribution of wealth through force. Since you can't be honest, you have to post a fairy tale story that does not mirror the real world in even the slightest of capacities, while trying to make people believe that it somehow makes an ounce of sense. It's no wonder, with "thinking" on this level (ie below that of a child) that you have been a complete and utter failure in life, and thus have turned to communism.
 
If the goal is to get everyone to pay higher taxes...which I guess is the point of the OP; we should go over the "cliff" I suppose.

Its all going to be okay. Don't worry.

That is not the goal. The goal is to stop subsidizing the rich by allowing them to actually pay a LOWER TAX RATE than the middle class regardless of the illusion of the progressive marginal tax chart.

When you pay a lower percent tax than someone else, that someone else is subsidizing you.

How old are you? You don't even know what the word subsidy means. You are just embarrassing yourself. Please don't use words if you don't know what they mean.

Subsidy Definition |
Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest. 2. Financial assistance ...

See, nobody (and I mean nobody) is GIVING money to the wealthy. Allowing someone to keep more of what is already their's is not a subsidy. You operate under this delusion that the wealthy owe the American people what ever they want, and not giving them what ever they want is "subsidizing" the wealthy.... :rofl:

This is just glaring evidence of what an ignorant little 12-year old you are, regurgitating dumbocrat talking points that you don't even understand.
 
You're the one who said we should raise taxes on the poor.

Yes - because you guys whine about "paying your fair share". Well, it's pretty clear who is not paying their fair share.

You have no clue what fair is.

You really think it's unfair that a high income earner would pay more in taxes than a low income earner?

No, not at all. The point is, they already do. They pay an ungodly amount. And you good little communist soldiers are screaming is not enough and you want more. That is the real problem in America. Not the current taxes paid by the wealthy.
 
:lol: Rottweiler = Dumb Ass :lol:

Subsidy Definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Financial assistance, either through direct payments or through indirect means such as price cuts and favourable contracts, to a person or group in order to promote a public objective. Subsidies to transportation, housing, agriculture, mining, and other industries have been instituted on the grounds that their preservation or expansion is in the public interest. Subsidies to the arts, sciences, humanities, and religion also exist in many nations where the private economy is unable to support them. Examples of direct subsidies include payments in cash or in kind, while more-indirect subsidies include governmental provision of goods or services at prices below the normal market price, governmental purchase of goods or services at prices above the market price, and tax concessions. Although subsidies exist to promote the public welfare, they result in either higher taxes or higher prices for consumer goods. Some subsidies, such as protective tariffs, may also encourage the preservation of inefficient producers. A subsidy is desirable only if its effects increase total benefits more than total costs
 
Last edited:
You're claiming that if the poor don't get any help, they'll all magically go out and find jobs,

and get jobs.

Where has that ever happened? What country has ever solved their poverty problems by ending all aid to the poor?

America has. Go watch the movie "The Pursuit of Happyness". It's the true story of Chris Gardner, who was content in his poverty and thus remained there. Then one day, his wife left him. Without her income, he lost his apartment and was sleeping on the streets with his son. That motivated him. With absolutely zero help from government, he became a multi-millionaire through hard work and today is worth more than you will ever be (that is not an insult either, it's just the reality of how much wealth this man has accumulated).

Sorry chief, it's indisputable proof that cannot be denied. People living off of the government in perpetual poverty (not temporary) do so because they are content. Tell them tomorrow that the food stamps and government housing will end, and that next week they will be hungry and homeless, and watch how fast they start working a real job. Just like Chris Gardner...
 
You're claiming that if the poor don't get any help, they'll all magically go out and find jobs,

and get jobs.

Where has that ever happened? What country has ever solved their poverty problems by ending all aid to the poor?

America has.

You're just babbling now.

If as you just claimed, the US solved its poverty problems by ending all benefits, why are you complaining about benefits?
 
You're claiming that if the poor don't get any help, they'll all magically go out and find jobs,

and get jobs.

Where has that ever happened? What country has ever solved their poverty problems by ending all aid to the poor?

America has.

You're just babbling now.

If as you just claimed, the US solved its poverty problems by ending all benefits, why are you complaining about benefits?

Chris Gardner. Game over.

Don't try to avoid the facts. It's a true story. It happened. Homeless poverty to millionaire, all without the help of government. And all because he finally became uncomfortable in his poverty.
 
If the goal is to get everyone to pay higher taxes...which I guess is the point of the OP; we should go over the "cliff" I suppose.

Its all going to be okay. Don't worry.

Actually, that wasn't the point. The point is, the left (in their infinite stupidity) is literally crushing the successful with taxes while crying "you don't pay your fair share, we need to raise taxes".

The facts clearly prove otherwise. But then again, you guys always were adverse to the facts.

Crushing? Apple has $120B in cash in the bank. Google has billions as well. The health system I work for is opening 3 new campuses in the upcoming year. You're simply an idiot or seriously mis-informed.

As for "fair share", I think all of our taxes need to go up.
 
This thread deserves A Tax Fable:

Suppose that everyday 10 men go to PJ's for lunch. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. The 10 men ate lunch in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now lunch for the 10 would costs only $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings between the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share?

The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be only fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount that each paid and he started to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks."

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."

The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next day he didn't show up for lunch, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean.


A Tax Fable
 

Forum List

Back
Top