Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Now, for the last time..There is no pie...Wealth is created. It does not exist in a vacuum.As the saying goes about the Golden Rule- "He who has the gold...makes the rules"
Has the wealth of the richest 1% increased from 9% to 24% because they have increased the standing of American industry in the world market? Have they lead a rising economic tide? Have they generated 3 times the wealth that was available in 1976?
Since 1976, the percentage of wealth controlled by the US in the world market has declined sharply. The American worker has seen his standard of living decline in this period, while the wealthiest 1% has almost tripled their wealth
The golden rule still applies......the richest 1% has gotten the rules changed so they pay less in taxes, have less stringent labor rules and is able to claim a larger slice of the pie
There is no "because one has more ,therefore another MUST have less"...It doesn't work that way.
On planet liberal, when a person accumulates more wealth, he "took" a bigger piece or "more than his fair share"....
The wealthiest 10% of the population pays 40% of the federal tax burden.
The top 33% pay nearly 70%....Conversely the bottom 50% pay NO FEDERAL TAX...
So tell me oh whiz of math, how is it the wealthy pay less in taxes?
Would you rather see the top marginal rate go back to 70%? Why not make it 90%....
What is it you libs love so much about high taxes?...Suppose it was you who suddenly had to cough up over half of your income to the government and then watch politicians throw it down a rat hole?
Very good point and it highlights the fact that the richest 1% have done nothing to make the pie bigger. US percentage of wealth has decreased since 1976. They have just made sure that they get a larger slice of the available pie.
The top 33% pay 70% of the tax because they are taking 70% of the wealth. Its not that hard to figure out. As they take more and more of the wealth, they pay more and more of the tax
The bottom 50% pay no income tax because they have minimal income. Their income has to go for rent, electric, doctors bills, food, fuel, transportation....not much left over to tax
I'm not proposing the tax rate going back to 70%. But how the hell can we justify giving them a tax cut so they pay the same 36% rate as those making $250,000? Lumping the super wealthy 1% with those making $250K only allows them to avoid taxation.
Right wingers think those "rich people" earned every penny.
They don't take into account that those rich right wingers paid politicians to change laws and regulations so they could get that money. Just look at Wall Street to see that.
And very few of those rich people even go into the military to defend the country were they were able to get so wealthy. And Republicans defend that too.
It's like Republicans are mesmerized by these people. The rich are somehow "more and better than human".
Of course, what do you expect? The right wing base are lemmings. All they know is, "There's a "black" guy in the "WHITE" House", and that's enough. That's all they need to know.
Now, for the last time..There is no pie...Wealth is created. It does not exist in a vacuum.
There is no "because one has more ,therefore another MUST have less"...It doesn't work that way.
On planet liberal, when a person accumulates more wealth, he "took" a bigger piece or "more than his fair share"....
The wealthiest 10% of the population pays 40% of the federal tax burden.
The top 33% pay nearly 70%....Conversely the bottom 50% pay NO FEDERAL TAX...
So tell me oh whiz of math, how is it the wealthy pay less in taxes?
Would you rather see the top marginal rate go back to 70%? Why not make it 90%....
What is it you libs love so much about high taxes?...Suppose it was you who suddenly had to cough up over half of your income to the government and then watch politicians throw it down a rat hole?
Very good point and it highlights the fact that the richest 1% have done nothing to make the pie bigger. US percentage of wealth has decreased since 1976. They have just made sure that they get a larger slice of the available pie.
The top 33% pay 70% of the tax because they are taking 70% of the wealth. Its not that hard to figure out. As they take more and more of the wealth, they pay more and more of the tax
The bottom 50% pay no income tax because they have minimal income. Their income has to go for rent, electric, doctors bills, food, fuel, transportation....not much left over to tax
I'm not proposing the tax rate going back to 70%. But how the hell can we justify giving them a tax cut so they pay the same 36% rate as those making $250,000? Lumping the super wealthy 1% with those making $250K only allows them to avoid taxation.
the bottom 50% pay no tax because that is the way the IRS and the US tax code is written. It is not because they have bills.You imply that the less wealthy have bills that other with higher incomes do not. That's disingenuous.
What difference does it make to you if a rich guy gets soaked or not. Do you really think it will put money in your pocket or help make the government run better?. Trust me neither will occur. To those on the left taxation is about getting even, punishment, envy and a comforting feeling that the government has stepped in and taken from those who they feel "have too much" or "more than they should" or "more their fair share".
From where did this $250 figure come?.....Obama. He decided to wage war on those earners because he knew it would set a fire under his target voters. The left has always used class envy as a tool to acquire votes. You drank the $250k cool-aid yourself.
Tell me what is your threshold for "rich"? In your opinion when does income and wealth become "obscene"?
Lets say the Obama admin gets it's way and raises taxes on the wealthy? What is to be done with the money? What purpose would this money serve?
You truly have a twisted relationship with facts. There is some generational wealth transfer and there always will be, but the VAST majority of wealth in this country is created in one generation.
What about Bill Gates? Warren Buffet? and literally hundreds of thousands of others - roughly 10% of the people in the country have a net worth greater than $1 million.
What twisted relationship with facts?
The Bush's are practically a dynasty in this country. They are obscenely wealthy and have had a vice on politics for quite some time. The same can be said for other families like the Kennedys and the Rockefellers.
You truly have a twisted relationship with facts. There is some generational wealth transfer and there always will be, but the VAST majority of wealth in this country is created in one generation.
What about Bill Gates? Warren Buffet? and literally hundreds of thousands of others - roughly 10% of the people in the country have a net worth greater than $1 million.
What twisted relationship with facts?
The Bush's are practically a dynasty in this country. They are obscenely wealthy and have had a vice on politics for quite some time. The same can be said for other families like the Kennedys and the Rockefellers.
Really? How many Bush's hold office currently? Is Bush in the top 400 wealthiest people? What about Kennedy? I think there is one Rockefeller on the top 400 list. And he's in his 90s.
No, you know nothing. Your knowledge base is slim. You get information by reading supermarket tabloids and apply it to real life. With distressingly ignorant results.
A $Million doesn't get one close to the top 1%.
The Equalizers would rather destroy the opportunity for that 80% to become millionaires than to tolerate the "roll of the gene pool dice" which results in a lucky few being born into wealth.
What twisted relationship with facts?
The Bush's are practically a dynasty in this country. They are obscenely wealthy and have had a vice on politics for quite some time. The same can be said for other families like the Kennedys and the Rockefellers.
Really? How many Bush's hold office currently? Is Bush in the top 400 wealthiest people? What about Kennedy? I think there is one Rockefeller on the top 400 list. And he's in his 90s.
No, you know nothing. Your knowledge base is slim. You get information by reading supermarket tabloids and apply it to real life. With distressingly ignorant results.
Hell with Bush, the scary part is we are starting to see a Quayle dynasty
Correct. The Left does not want focus on the small bus owner losing his shirt due to overhead and now a confiscatory tax on the way.Very good point and it highlights the fact that the richest 1% have done nothing to make the pie bigger. US percentage of wealth has decreased since 1976. They have just made sure that they get a larger slice of the available pie.
The top 33% pay 70% of the tax because they are taking 70% of the wealth. Its not that hard to figure out. As they take more and more of the wealth, they pay more and more of the tax
The bottom 50% pay no income tax because they have minimal income. Their income has to go for rent, electric, doctors bills, food, fuel, transportation....not much left over to tax
I'm not proposing the tax rate going back to 70%. But how the hell can we justify giving them a tax cut so they pay the same 36% rate as those making $250,000? Lumping the super wealthy 1% with those making $250K only allows them to avoid taxation.
the bottom 50% pay no tax because that is the way the IRS and the US tax code is written. It is not because they have bills.You imply that the less wealthy have bills that other with higher incomes do not. That's disingenuous.
What difference does it make to you if a rich guy gets soaked or not. Do you really think it will put money in your pocket or help make the government run better?. Trust me neither will occur. To those on the left taxation is about getting even, punishment, envy and a comforting feeling that the government has stepped in and taken from those who they feel "have too much" or "more than they should" or "more their fair share".
From where did this $250 figure come?.....Obama. He decided to wage war on those earners because he knew it would set a fire under his target voters. The left has always used class envy as a tool to acquire votes. You drank the $250k cool-aid yourself.
Tell me what is your threshold for "rich"? In your opinion when does income and wealth become "obscene"?
Lets say the Obama admin gets it's way and raises taxes on the wealthy? What is to be done with the money? What purpose would this money serve?
The $250 k threshold came from the upper tax bracket. There was a time that those upper tax brackets were $1 million plus. The GOP wisely figures that if they lumped those making $250k with those making multiple millions, it would be harder to raise taxes on those making multi-millions a year
Looks like it worked. All we hear from the GOP is about the poor small business owners who make $250k....they never mention the guy making $25million
Really? How many Bush's hold office currently? Is Bush in the top 400 wealthiest people? What about Kennedy? I think there is one Rockefeller on the top 400 list. And he's in his 90s.
No, you know nothing. Your knowledge base is slim. You get information by reading supermarket tabloids and apply it to real life. With distressingly ignorant results.
Hell with Bush, the scary part is we are starting to see a Quayle dynasty
Hell with Quayle (he lost). What about a Reid dynasty? Or a Biden dynasty?
Correct. The Left does not want focus on the small bus owner losing his shirt due to overhead and now a confiscatory tax on the way.the bottom 50% pay no tax because that is the way the IRS and the US tax code is written. It is not because they have bills.You imply that the less wealthy have bills that other with higher incomes do not. That's disingenuous.
What difference does it make to you if a rich guy gets soaked or not. Do you really think it will put money in your pocket or help make the government run better?. Trust me neither will occur. To those on the left taxation is about getting even, punishment, envy and a comforting feeling that the government has stepped in and taken from those who they feel "have too much" or "more than they should" or "more their fair share".
From where did this $250 figure come?.....Obama. He decided to wage war on those earners because he knew it would set a fire under his target voters. The left has always used class envy as a tool to acquire votes. You drank the $250k cool-aid yourself.
Tell me what is your threshold for "rich"? In your opinion when does income and wealth become "obscene"?
Lets say the Obama admin gets it's way and raises taxes on the wealthy? What is to be done with the money? What purpose would this money serve?
The $250 k threshold came from the upper tax bracket. There was a time that those upper tax brackets were $1 million plus. The GOP wisely figures that if they lumped those making $250k with those making multiple millions, it would be harder to raise taxes on those making multi-millions a year
Looks like it worked. All we hear from the GOP is about the poor small business owners who make $250k....they never mention the guy making $25million
What the class envy folks do not want ot talk about is that the Govt is attacking GROSS income not net. So when a business balances it's books for the year and realizes a 30% net income on gross sales of $250k, the feds aren't going after the net. They are going after gross revenues.
Many businesses are downsizing in preparation of this latest government money grab. They want to stay under the magic $250k level to avoid the grubby paws of DC politicians.
This tax increase is a job killer for sure.
The updated data show that if European countries had been added as American states in 2008:
1. Italy ($30,756), Greece ($29,361) and Portugal ($30,756) would rank as the three poorest U.S. states, below even Mississippi in per capita GDP ($31,233); Portugal would be 26% poorer than Mississippi.
2. Spain ($31,955) would be Americas second poorest state, ranking between West Virginia ($33,978) and Mississippi ($31,233).
3. France ($34,045) and Belgium ($34,493) would rank #48 and #49 as U.S. states, just barely ahead of Arkansas ($34,437).
4. Germany ($35,613), U.K. ($35,445) and Finland ($35,426) would rank among the poorest 15% of American states, with per capita GDP below Alabama ($36,469).
5. Although Switzerland (not an EU country but included here), Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Denmark rank among Europe's wealthiest countries, they would be below average as U.S. states measured by GDP per capita, ranging between 9.5% below the U.S. average for Switzerland to 22% below the U.S. average for Denmark.
6. Luxembourg is the only EU country that would rank above average and would in fact be the wealthiest American state, but behind the District of Columbia in per-capita GDP.
Hell with Bush, the scary part is we are starting to see a Quayle dynasty
Hell with Quayle (he lost). What about a Reid dynasty? Or a Biden dynasty?
Amazingly, the fine people of Arizona elected Baby Quayle to represent them
But at least we got a Cuomo dynasty back in New York
Interesting exchange between O'Reilly and Juan Williams last night as they discussed who the President is--is he a socialist????--and what socialism actually is.
In a nutshell, socialism is government owning or controlling the means of production, and in Marxist socialism is also the 'redistribution of wealth' philosophy. In Marx's '1875 Critique of the Gotha Program', he coined the phrase: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
The socialist minded among us believe the rich should be taxed more and forced to provide more because they don't 'need all that wealth' and the little guys 'needs' it. And they see the government as the vehicle to take from the rich and provide to the 'poor'.
What they leave out of that equation, however, is Marx's philosophy that everybody would contribute as much as they were able. Somehow that part always gets swallowed up in a socialist system though just as soon as folks figure out they don't have to put in much effort in order to have as much as those who do. And then the system begins breaking down so everybody has less except those in power who can take whatever they want.
I prefer the American system.
That's an opinion ...Not based in fact.How can our current level of concentrated wealth be good?
The last time we reached this level of wealth concentration was in the late '20's just before the Great Depression.
And yes, the accumulation of this level of concentrated wealth has resulted in a zero-sum game.
Interesting exchange between O'Reilly and Juan Williams last night as they discussed who the President is--is he a socialist????--and what socialism actually is.
In a nutshell, socialism is government owning or controlling the means of production, and in Marxist socialism is also the 'redistribution of wealth' philosophy. In Marx's '1875 Critique of the Gotha Program', he coined the phrase: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
The socialist minded among us believe the rich should be taxed more and forced to provide more because they don't 'need all that wealth' and the little guys 'needs' it. And they see the government as the vehicle to take from the rich and provide to the 'poor'.
What they leave out of that equation, however, is Marx's philosophy that everybody would contribute as much as they were able. Somehow that part always gets swallowed up in a socialist system though just as soon as folks figure out they don't have to put in much effort in order to have as much as those who do. And then the system begins breaking down so everybody has less except those in power who can take whatever they want.
I prefer the American system.
I do to
The American system has had a "socialist" progressive tax for over 75 years
Which kind of system requires someone living in poverty to contribute the same in taxes as someone who is mega wealthy?
Which kind of system requires someone living in poverty to contribute the same in taxes as someone who is mega wealthy?
Interesting exchange between O'Reilly and Juan Williams last night as they discussed who the President is--is he a socialist????--and what socialism actually is.
In a nutshell, socialism is government owning or controlling the means of production, and in Marxist socialism is also the 'redistribution of wealth' philosophy. In Marx's '1875 Critique of the Gotha Program', he coined the phrase: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
The socialist minded among us believe the rich should be taxed more and forced to provide more because they don't 'need all that wealth' and the little guys 'needs' it. And they see the government as the vehicle to take from the rich and provide to the 'poor'.
What they leave out of that equation, however, is Marx's philosophy that everybody would contribute as much as they were able. Somehow that part always gets swallowed up in a socialist system though just as soon as folks figure out they don't have to put in much effort in order to have as much as those who do. And then the system begins breaking down so everybody has less except those in power who can take whatever they want.
I prefer the American system.
I do to
The American system has had a "socialist" progressive tax for over 75 years
Which kind of system requires someone living in poverty to contribute the same in taxes as someone who is mega wealthy?