Top 1% file class action suit for being forced to pay 40% of income taxes.

[JakeStarkey]

The rich and wealthy always have loop holes created by the holes in the heads of folks like EB and their running dogs.

 

[KissMy]

The middle class are subsidizing the rich through higher taxes.

actually the top 1% pay 40% of all federal income taxes!! How unusual that a liberal got it backwards again.

You are just another retard with no clue about business or economics.

The fact is the middle class needs a tax cut or we must raise taxes on the rich or both. Currently the middle class is subsidizing the rich. The government has set up an uneven playing field by taxing the rich far less than the middle class.

- KissMy (middle class job creator) produces widgets & gets taxed at 28%.
- Mitt Romney (entitled rich pussy) produces widgets & gets taxed at 13%.
Now Romney can produce widgets & sell them for profit cheaper than KissMy. KissMy middle class ass goes under & becomes KissMy poor broke ass. Romney acquires KissMy widgets from bankruptsy for a fire-sale price of 10 cents on the dollar. He has taken over the assets & market thus has more tax revenue but still lower tax rates enabling him to unfairly compete & destroy another middle class job creator.

We are also forced to subsidize the rich's flood insurance. They are the ones who own most of the beech homes & benifit the most from that massive subsidy. To top it off we had to bail out their banks. All accounts are FDIC insured up to $250K. But the rich had much more than that in their accounts. $2.5 trillion of their bad bets & debts got rolled onto the ballance sheet of the Federal Reserve where they remain to this day even as they lie & say they paid us back.

 

[KissMy]

What class action lawsuit dip-shit. The middle class are subsidizing the rich through higher taxes. Not only would the rich lose your fantasy lawsuit, the middle class counter-suit for damages from tax code abuse would strip them of a shit load of their ill-gotten gain from income tax subsidy to the rich. They would never be stupid enough to bring that suit.

Do you have a viable source to prove that the "middle class are subsidizing the rich through higher taxes?

gee I guess not; what a surprise!!

The proof has been shoved up your ass many times. Pull your rich massa dick out of your mouth & read.

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 along with the poor. Get off the back of the Middle Class & help us carry the poor.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

gee I guess not; what a surprise!!

it turns out from your own IRS data that the top 1% pay 40% of all federal income tax now while the top 1% paid only 23% under Reagan.

So the idea that the middle class subsidize the rich is absurd when the middle class pay very little tax let alone anywhere near their fair share.

PLease tell us what % of federal tax the top 1% pay!! or admit to being a liberal without the IQ to do so?

 

[JakeStarkey]

TooStupid EB forgets that wealth in 30 years has increased exponentially for the wealthy while it stabilized and decreased for many in the middle class.

The wealthy will pay their fair share.

gee I guess not; what a surprise!!

it turns out from your own IRS data that the top 1% pay 40% of all federal income tax now while the top 1% paid only 23% under Reagan.

So the idea that the middle class subsidize the rich is absurd when the middle class pay very little tax let alone anywhere near their fair share.

PLease tell us what % of federal tax the top 1% pay!! or admit to being a liberal without the IQ to do so?

 

[Synthaholic]

The government is highly efficient?

At what?

Government agencies typically have 4-6% administrative costs.

Private companies typically have 25-30% administrative costs.

The difference? Executive pay.

Yet you forget about the multi level bureaucracies.... and not to mention that when you get away from wingers like Krugman, you find that things such as medicare have actually HIGHER administrative costs than private insurance....

But don't let that stand in the way of your preconceived stance

Are you claiming there are not multi levels in corporations?

 

[KissMy]

gee I guess not; what a surprise!!

it turns out from your own IRS data that the top 1% pay 40% of all federal income tax now while the top 1% paid only 23% under Reagan.

So the idea that the middle class subsidize the rich is absurd when the middle class pay very little tax let alone anywhere near their fair share.

PLease tell us what % of federal tax the top 1% pay!! or admit to being a liberal without the IQ to do so?

You are just another spastic retard with no clue about business or economics. I am defiantly not a liberal. Now that you have posted your absurd stupidity, the world now can see you don't even know what a subsidy is.

Subsidy Definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary:

"Financial assistance, either through direct payments or through indirect means such as price cuts and favorable 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."

The federal government has tilted the playing field to the rich. They are in fact benefiting from the tax code & the middle class is burdened by it.

We subsidized ethanol when we taxed it 23 cents per gallon less than gasoline at the pump. We tax the rich like Mitt Romney 15 cents per dollar less than I am taxed per dollar. The government is forcing me to subsidize Mitt Romney. I demand a tax cut for the middle class. I am beyond tired of subsidizing the rich.

- KissMy (middle class job creator) produces widgets & gets taxed at 28%.
- Mitt Romney (entitled rich pussy) produces widgets & gets taxed at 13%.
Now Romney can produce widgets & sell them for profit cheaper than KissMy. Money flows to where it is treated best & if someone is taxed less they generate more profit thus attracting all the investment. That is how the rich vastly increased their margin with the Bush tax cuts. KissMy middle class ass goes under & becomes KissMy poor broke ass. Romney acquires KissMy widgets from bankruptsy for a fire-sale price of 10 cents on the dollar. He has taken over the assets, customers, market, fired KissMy & some of his workers & cut all workers pay now that he has a monopoly. Now Romney has more tax revenue but still lower tax rates enabling him to unfairly compete & destroy another middle class job creator. Romney got subsidized to drive KissMy out of business, destroy jobs & become a monopoly to eliminate competition to maximize his profit that he whines like the entitled baby he is about paying tax on.

We are also forced to subsidize the rich's flood insurance. They are the ones who own most of the beech homes & benifit the most from that massive subsidy. To top it off we had to bail out their banks. All accounts are FDIC insured up to $250K. But the rich had much more than that in their accounts. $2.5 trillion of their bad bets & debts got rolled onto the ballance sheet of the Federal Reserve where they remain to this day even as they lie & say they paid us back. The rich are subsidized at every turn by the middle class tax payer. It's time they learn to stand on their own 2 feet & get off of mine.

Yes we are subsidizing the rich. That is a fact as you well know & continue to lie about for political reasons. The fact is the middle class needs a tax cut or we must raise taxes on the rich or both. Currently the middle class is subsidizing the rich. The government has set up an uneven playing field by taxing the rich far lower percent than the middle class.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

gee I guess not; what a surprise!!

it turns out from your own IRS data that the top 1% pay 40% of all federal income tax now while the top 1% paid only 23% under Reagan.

So the idea that the middle class subsidize the rich is absurd when the middle class pay very little tax let alone anywhere near their fair share.

PLease tell us what % of federal tax the top 1% pay!! or admit to being a liberal without the IQ to do so?

You are just another spastic retard with no clue about business or economics.

dear, it seems you are the one who is unable to tell us what % of all federal income tax the top 1% pay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What does that tell us about your IQ and character???

 

[JakeStarkey]

EB, you have the intelligence and balance of an ObamaPhoneLady, so you best step off, my sweet.

 

[MikeK]

What doya want Edward? A socialist revolution?

That is what happens when wealth distribution gets too lopsided.

with 1% paying 40%
of taxes I'm not surprised they want a revolution or at least a court settlement.

I subscribe to the adage that behind every great fortune lies a great crime.

Those One Percenters who lament a 40% tax rate are ignoring the 91% rate imposed on their wealth level which existed from FDR's term through the Eisenhower presidency and attended the most prosperous and productive decades in our history. And the thing which must be noted is even that rate of income tax did not financially injure the super-rich. All it did was make them a bit less rich. The tax did not affect the vast millions they'd already accumulated. All it did was take a percentage of their investment dividends, leaving them still filthy rich. Yet the greedy, gluttonous bastards whimper and complain as if they are being drawn and quartered (which some of them richly deserve) by the 40% rate.

They call a 40% tax rate socialism. If this were truly a socialist nation there would be a limit on the amount of personal assets one is allowed to possess. I would propose that amount to be twenty million dollars. Anything over that amount to be confiscated by the IRS.

Under those conditions we would have a much saner, happier, and healthier Nation -- except for the few clinically depressed and miserable money hoarders who would be consigned to intenstive psychiatric care because greed is a recognized mental illness.

Now I'd like to hear from the Tories and corporatist toadies, most of whom haven't a pot to piss in, why such a proposal is unfair, outrageous, "communist," or whatever negative might occur to them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Those One Percenters who lament a 40% tax rate are ignoring the 91% rate imposed on their wealth level which existed from FDR's term through the Eisenhower presidency

1)of course in those years nobody paid that tax and the government collected less of GDP than they do now with far lower rates.

2) in those years there was no international competition, now there is tons and we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world to boot !!

Isn't thinking fun??

 

[JakeStarkey]

EB continues to misapply historical facts. Nothing new.

 

[MikeK]

Those One Percenters who lament a 40% tax rate are ignoring the 91% rate imposed on their wealth level which existed from FDR's term through the Eisenhower presidency

1)of course in those years nobody paid that tax and the government collected less of GDP than they do now with far lower rates.

Presuming you are talking about downward adjustment via loopholes and legitimate deductions, the same situation applies proportionately to the existing rates. So your point is null and void.

2) in those years there was no international competition, now there is tons and we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world to boot !!

Yet there are substantially more millionaires and billionaires today than there were back then. So the means of acquisition is not the issue. Acquisition is the issue. I'm not concerned with how you acquired ten billion dollars in assets. I'm concerned with the fact that you've managed to acquire that much money. How you got it is not relevant to the purpose of maintaining a healthy economic balance and social quality.[/quote]

Isn't thinking fun??

It is. You should try it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1)of course in those years nobody paid that tax and the government collected less of GDP than they do now with far lower rates.[/quote]

Presuming you are talking about downward adjustment via loopholes and legitimate deductions, the same situation applies proportionately to the existing rates. So your point is null and void.

dear in 1950 government took 20% today they take 40%!! Sorry


US government spending as percent of GDP - Charts Tables History


do you feel like a liberal now????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yet there are substantially more millionaires and billionaires today than there were back then.

Dear, inflation makes the dollar worth 10 times what is was then, the population of the world has doubled, and the world is fully integrated economicially so of course there are more millionaires, and more cars, more houses,TV's phones etc etc etc etc.


See why we are 100% certain a liberal will be slow, so very very slow!!

 

[Toronado3800]

1)of course in those years nobody paid that tax and the government collected less of GDP than they do now with far lower rates.

Presuming you are talking about downward adjustment via loopholes and legitimate deductions, the same situation applies proportionately to the existing rates. So your point is null and void.

dear in 1950 government took 20% today they take 40%!! Sorry


US government spending as percent of GDP - Charts Tables History


do you feel like a liberal now????[/QUOTE]

Loopholes are there to encourage you to do something positive with your money and the high tax rate was a penalty for doing nothing.

It is good you and I both agree they worked.

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of which applies at all to the issue, something any liberal or conservative clearly understands, but a deranged EB does not.

Yet there are substantially more millionaires and billionaires today than there were back then.

Dear, inflation makes the dollar worth 10 times what is was then, the population of the world has doubled, and the world is fully integrated economicially so of course there are more millionaires, and more cars, more houses,TV's phones etc etc etc etc.


See why we are 100% certain a liberal will be slow, so very very slow!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1)of course in those years nobody paid that tax and the government collected less of GDP than they do now with far lower rates.

Presuming you are talking about downward adjustment via loopholes and legitimate deductions, the same situation applies proportionately to the existing rates. So your point is null and void.

dear in 1950 government took 20% today they take 40%!! Sorry


US government spending as percent of GDP - Charts Tables History


do you feel like a liberal now????

Loopholes are there to encourage you to do something positive with your money and the high tax rate was a penalty for doing nothing.
[/QUOTE]

nothing??????? Most private wealth is held in business ownership!!!


See why we say a liberal will be slow??

 

[JimH52]

This seems a clear violation of the equal protection clause. Does anyone doubt it?

And they can afford the best lawyers...right?

 

[Toronado3800]

1)of course in those years nobody paid that tax and the government collected less of GDP than they do now with far lower rates.

Presuming you are talking about downward adjustment via loopholes and legitimate deductions, the same situation applies proportionately to the existing rates. So your point is null and void.

dear in 1950 government took 20% today they take 40%!! Sorry


US government spending as percent of GDP - Charts Tables History


do you feel like a liberal now????

Loopholes are there to encourage you to do something positive with your money and the high tax rate was a penalty for doing nothing.

nothing??????? Most private wealth is held in business ownership!!!


See why we say a liberal will be slow??[/QUOTE]

Read more carefully Edward and pay attention to the context instead of just randomly saying silly mean things.