top 5 % own more than half of the wealth

[Ernie S.]

Heres an idea why not make those who own 50% of the countrys wealth pay 50% of the taxes?

The top 50% already pays 90% of the taxes now idiot!

 

[Ernie S.]

Make them pay their fair share of taxes.

They already pay more than their fair share! A single man with no children who makes $250,000 will end up over $100,000 grand in taxes, but a janitor with 6 kids making 25 grand pays nothing? Maybe even qualifies for EITC, and you want the guy who uses nearly no government services other than the highway to pay more? Fair would be a regressive tax structure, not progressive with a yearly bonus for underachievers.

So you think the poor can kick in more instead?

You wanted fair.....

 

[Truthmatters]

How do you squeeze blood from a turnip?

 

[Truthmatters]

Heres an idea why not make those who own 50% of the countrys wealth pay 50% of the taxes?

The top 50% already pays 90% of the taxes now idiot!

Document your claim

 

[Ernie S.]

Heres an idea why not make those who own 50% of the countrys wealth pay 50% of the taxes?

The top 50% already pays 90% of the taxes now idiot!

Document your claim

Can you read?

 

[The Infidel]

the class war is being waged by the wealthy on the rest of us

Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

The Tax Foundation - Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%

 

[boedicca]

Heres an idea why not make those who own 50% of the countrys wealth pay 50% of the taxes?

Because wealth is often not liquid, it's tied up in things like houses.

Do you want old retired people on fixed incomes to lose their homes because they don't have the cash to pay a FEDERAL PROPERTY TAX (cuz that's what you are suggesting)?

Bullshit.

they are not the top 5% and you know it

They most certainly can be. Note how these moonbat sources talk about percentages instead of providing figures as to the dollars levels associated with the 5%.

Here's a bit of dollar based info.

This is 1998 data, but given the state of housing, good enough for this discussion:

(Average wealth per household in the tier):

Top 1% $10,203,700
Next 4% $1,441,200
Next 5% $623,500
Next 10% $344,900
Next 20% $161,300
Next 20% $61,000
Next 20% $11,000
Last 20% -$8,900

http://www.lcurve.org/WealthDistribution-1998.htm


The EVUL rich people in the Next 4% level had an average net worth of $1.4M. (That is less than the net present value of the pensions paid to many public union employees, btw). In high cost real estate areas, it's not inconceivable that half that amount is the equity in a home, with the rest being retirement savings.

The Next 5% and next 10% levels are certainly middle class folks, the ones who are the real target of creating a federal property tax. They are stuck; the transaction costs of selling their homes makes it impossible for them to just pick up and move.

 

[The Infidel]

Fewer and fewer Americans hold all the wealth in this country and fools still vote for more of it.


When will the right leaning voters wake up?

Top 1% Paid More in Federal Income Taxes Than Bottom 95% in ‘07


Top 1% Paid More in Federal Income Taxes Than Bottom 95% in '07 - NYTimes.com

 

[The Infidel]

Make them pay their fair share of taxes.

Im all for a fair tax system, but somehow, I dont think you really know what that would mean.

 

[The Infidel]

Heres an idea why not make those who own 50% of the countrys wealth pay 50% of the taxes?

Heres an idea, why not make those who use the system help pay for the system

Im all for that "fair tax" you were talking about though

 

[The Infidel]

Damn... I need some potatoes to go with all this red meat

 

[Ernie S.]

Looks like TM has bailed on her own thread.

 

[The Infidel]

Looks like TM has bailed on her own thread.

Details are a bitch sometimes

 

[Ernie S.]

Granted the data I linked to was pre Bush tax cuts, but it was interesting to find that the bottom 40% of earners paid -1%, yes minus one percent of taxes, presumably due to the earned income tax credit.These are the people using the majority of the services. Don't you think they should kick in a bit?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Someone needs to explain to me what is a "fair" or "flat" tax, and explain the long term consequences of such a policy; include if you will how an elimination of any ceiling on the 'death' tax might impact the consequences.

 

[editec]

Because of the housing bust, home equity as a percent of home value fell from 59.5% in the first quarter of 2006 to
36.2% in the fourth quarter of 2009. For the first time on record, the percent of home value that homeowners own
outright dropped below 50%—meaning that banks now own more of the nation’s housing stock than people do.


Banks got bailed out and then got more property in the deal.

Average tax payers got hosed and the right thinks we need more hosing.

What does Obama say (or is doing) about this?

NOT a damned thing.

He knows which of the bread has the butter, too.

 

[william the wie]

TM and Wry Catcher are objecting to the fact that a normal distribution of talents and luck compounded over 40-50 years leads to a logarithmic distribution of wealth? What do they want cloning?

 

[Ernie S.]

TM is conspicuously missing. I guess truth matters not.

 

[sparky]

inequity and disaprity are a real issue in American today. The tax laws that are bantered about are only one peice of the puzzle, unfortunatley the piece most often subjected to the lies, damned lies & statistics addage

i'm willing to wager the majority of you that have business's and/or investments don't do your own taxes as proof of this

you'll make excuses , or offer the professional touch up, but the truth is few of us understand tax laws , which change constantly, ergo we don't

something you should all consider reading>



But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.

When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1 percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied. The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair

 

[The Infidel]

TM and Wry Catcher are objecting to the fact that a normal distribution of talents and luck compounded over 40-50 years leads to a logarithmic distribution of wealth? What do they want cloning?

A free ride