Why are conservatives so convinced that liberals detest the wealthy?

[NYcarbineer]

The statistics come right from the government web site.
So the government is lying about the statistics?

He said the statistic was worthless, not that it was false.

Actually, I disagree with him. The statistic shows that the richest people are paying almost the same share of income in taxes as the poorest people. That in itself shows that something is wrong; the richer a person is, the higher the share of his/her income should be paid in taxes.

Why should they pay a higher percentage?

Actually, I think those figures are not correct. The figures I've seen say the top 1% pays 40% of all income taxes. The top 10% pays 70% of all income taxes.

How does the country get better by making lower income Americans pay a bigger share?

In real life terms, please...

 

[Skull Pilot]

What is their fair share?

The top 1 percent of earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3 percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes.

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15% of their income in federal taxes. Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5% of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7%.

Let's start with a fair share of what they were paying when Clinton was president and we actually had a budget surplus

you do realize that everyone not just the rich were paying higher taxes back then don;t you?

So if you want everyone to pay what they did under Slick Willy's admin then fine but don't try to pretend that raising taxes on only "the rich" will result in another budget surplus.

 

[Article 15]

What the hell is a "dollar for dollar tax with progressive brackets?"

Communism.

Duh.

It certainly is a 50% tax in which the government would redistribute..

I suppose one could label that communism.

Socialism is nothing more than a controlled economy and I would certainly label a 50% mandatory tax rate a "controlled economy" given it's repercussions..

So we were Commies when we were fighting the Cold War.

 

[Full-Auto]

The statistics come right from the government web site.
So the government is lying about the statistics?

He said the statistic was worthless, not that it was false.

Actually, I disagree with him. The statistic shows that the richest people are paying almost the same share of income in taxes as the poorest people. That in itself shows that something is wrong; the richer a person is, the higher the share of his/her income should be paid in taxes.

Why should they pay a higher percentage?

Actually, I think those figures are not correct. The figures I've seen say the top 1% pays 40% of all income taxes. The top 10% pays 70% of all income taxes.

the chart is from 2004 Nuff said.............

 

[Dragon]

You don't speak for the interests of any American who actually produces something of value. You speak for useless parasites who suck off the taxpayers.

I speak for people who hold jobs and work. Perhaps you regard such people as "useless parasites." It would certainly be in character.

 

[midcan5]

The conservative assumption that liberals hate the rich is simply a clever subterfuge that keeps the stupid stupid. Lots of liberals are rich and I know of none that want to live in poverty. The more pressing issue is the working poor and the out of work. So long as the moronic idea that wealth creates local jobs persists, the subterfuge will continue and the stupid will repeat it. Americans could easily change - well not easily - this if they supported jobs here and companies here, but.... Big BUT no one will do that as Americans like cheap and buy cheap, or they buy names, advertising works. Tell Walmart you want American made, and fair wages, don't buy Nike, tell Verizon et al you'd like their support to be in America, shop union made, simple stuff huh? Nah, propaganda alone manages the mind of the right wing ideologue while the wealthy play the pied piper sing along.

Below is an excellent piece on fair taxation. No rich person makes money in a vacuum and it is only our system of government and law that allows them to practice their greed.

"What is a human life worth? You may not want to put a price tag on a it. But if we really had to, most of us would agree that the value of a human life would be in the millions. Consistent with the foundations of our democracy and our frequently professed belief in the inherent dignity of human beings, we would also agree that all humans are created equal, at least to the extent of denying that differences of sex, ethnicity, nationality and place of residence change the value of a human life." What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?, by Peter Singer


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax


And here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...h-should-not-be-taxed-more-9.html#post4392557

 

[rightwinger]

What is their fair share?

The top 1 percent of earners account for 20.3 percent of total personal income in the United States and pay 21.5 percent of all federal and state taxes. The middle 20 percent of households earn 11.6 percent of US income and pay 10.3 percent of taxes. The lowest 20 percent account for just 3.5 percent of income, and pay 2 percent of all taxes.

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.

There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. That, however, was less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1% of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes and payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15% of their income in federal taxes. Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5% of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7%.

Let's start with a fair share of what they were paying when Clinton was president and we actually had a budget surplus

you do realize that everyone not just the rich were paying higher taxes back then don;t you?

So if you want everyone to pay what they did under Slick Willy's admin then fine but don't try to pretend that raising taxes on only "the rich" will result in another budget surplus.

I am perfectly willing to go back to the Clinton tax rates as long as the money is used for debt reduction

 

[Article 15]

Let's start with a fair share of what they were paying when Clinton was president and we actually had a budget surplus

you do realize that everyone not just the rich were paying higher taxes back then don;t you?

So if you want everyone to pay what they did under Slick Willy's admin then fine but don't try to pretend that raising taxes on only "the rich" will result in another budget surplus.

I am perfectly willing to go back to the Clinton tax rates as long as the money is used for debt reduction

As am I.

 

[bripat9643]

But if you're for "equal" treatment you wouldn't be in favor of a flat tax. You're right, fair is subjective. Just so happens your definition of fair happens to be wrong.

You just admitted that the term "fair" is meaningless, then you claimed your definition was correct. However, you haven't even defined it. The bullshit never stops with you, does it?

 

[bripat9643]

The bar graph is not a per capita spending chart. There is no spin here to dispute the fact that excessive military spending is the main cause of our fiscal problems.

Democrat social programs are the man cause of our fiscal problems. Military spending has decreased drastically since the height of the cold war.

 

[Skull Pilot]

you do realize that everyone not just the rich were paying higher taxes back then don;t you?

So if you want everyone to pay what they did under Slick Willy's admin then fine but don't try to pretend that raising taxes on only "the rich" will result in another budget surplus.

I am perfectly willing to go back to the Clinton tax rates as long as the money is used for debt reduction

As am I.

Are you willing to cut spending to Clinton levels as well because you can't have one without the other.

 

[rightwinger]

That's not even a good graph...

A more accurate description would be per capita spending on defense.

If we went by those numbers France and the UK would be right up there with the US.... Hell they may as well spend more than we do per capita...

Actually, it comes down to what is the threat?

How many of those countries are potential threats? How many are potential allies? What is the actual threat to Continental US?

We are telling Americans that they will have to make sacrifices and make do with less as we ran up a $15 trillion debt. Let's revisit why defense is a sacred cow

The only reason why those countries are no threat is because we developed a massive arsenal and have advanced technology.... That shit costs money, and it especially costs money to stay on top of the game as far as technology..

Don't think for a fucking second China wouldn't love to invade the US or a neighboring country and steal their woman...

Don't think for a second our presence in the world hasn't prevented numerous wars, with other countries knowing that we could step in and put a hurt on them, hence the war was never worth it...

Hell, I'm quite sure if we were an isolated nation there would have already been a WWIII..

The reason most of those countries are not threats is because we have been economic and military allies for over 50 years

China has no desires to attack the US. They are incapable of attacking Taiwan and Taiwan is only 90 miles away. Attacking the most powerful nation in history from over 5000 miles away is nonsense

Our presence around the world does prevent wars. But it is high time that the US insist that the other industrialized nations take over that role in their sphere of influence.

Nobody is advocating isolationism. But there is no reason we should force Americans to sacrifice and accumulate debt while we play policeman

 

[Mr.Nick]

He said the statistic was worthless, not that it was false.

Actually, I disagree with him. The statistic shows that the richest people are paying almost the same share of income in taxes as the poorest people. That in itself shows that something is wrong; the richer a person is, the higher the share of his/her income should be paid in taxes.

Why should they pay a higher percentage?

Actually, I think those figures are not correct. The figures I've seen say the top 1% pays 40% of all income taxes. The top 10% pays 70% of all income taxes.

How does the country get better by making lower income Americans pay a bigger share?

In real life terms, please...

You do realize the collective taxes paid by the middle class exceeds the wealthy because only 1% of Americans are "wealthy" er uber rich..

100 million people being taxed on their 40-250k salaries will out-gross the 500,000 or so that make 250k+??

As far as individually, the rich pay WAY MORE in taxes than the typical middle class worker - both monetarily and percentage..

I suppose the best way to explain this would be like this.

Suppose 100 people put 1 dollar into a pot and 10 people put 5 dollars into a pot - which group collected the most money??? obviously the 100 people who put 1 dollar into their pot, however the guys who put 5 dollars into the pot paid 5x more than the 100 did but they only managed to come up with 50 bucks..

Get it???

 

[bripat9643]

He said the statistic was worthless, not that it was false.

Actually, I disagree with him. The statistic shows that the richest people are paying almost the same share of income in taxes as the poorest people. That in itself shows that something is wrong; the richer a person is, the higher the share of his/her income should be paid in taxes.

Why should they pay a higher percentage?

Actually, I think those figures are not correct. The figures I've seen say the top 1% pays 40% of all income taxes. The top 10% pays 70% of all income taxes.

How does the country get better by making lower income Americans pay a bigger share?

In real life terms, please...

It gets better when everyone pays less. However, everyone should have some skin in the game. When lower incomes pay no taxes, they have no motive to keep government spending under control. Then irresponsible weasels like Nazi Pelosi and Harry Reid gain control. They are sending this country swirling down the toilet bowl towards bankruptcy.

 

[Dragon]

Why should they pay a higher percentage?

Actually, I think those figures are not correct. The figures I've seen say the top 1% pays 40% of all income taxes. The top 10% pays 70% of all income taxes.

I'll answer your question in a moment, but first I want to point out that you're using a statistical inversion fallacy. You're confusing two different measures:

1) What percentage of their income the rich pay in taxes; and
2) What percentage of total tax revenues the rich pay.

That the rich pay only 21% of their income in taxes, and that they pay 40% of all taxes, are not contradictory. Both could be true at the same time, if the rich hold a large share of the income, which is obviously true.

Now, why should they pay a higher percentage? Because, as you are prone to point out, a dollar is "just a worthless piece of paper." Its value lies in what it can buy. And so the value of a tax debt, from the perspective of the individual taxpayer, is determined by what the money would otherwise be used for.

There is a hierarchy of things that everyone does with their income.

First, they take care of necessities: food, shelter, clothing, and those expenditures necessary to survive and make a living.

Second, they spend money on luxuries: things they could do without, but would like to have.

Third, they save money for security or to make a big planned purchase.

Fourth, they invest in activities that produce real wealth: businesses that grow crops, make goods, or perform services.

Fifth, they invest in financial instruments that amount to gambling: activities that don't produce any real wealth but may succeed in generating a profit by shuffling money from one person to another.

The poorest people never get past the first step. Working class people are generally confined to the first three categories. Middle-class people are also usually confined to the first three categories and sometimes into the fourth. The richest people put their money into all five categories, and the richer they are, the more of their money goes into the fifth category (except when, by temperament, they prefer to engage in charitable activities instead -- but that of course is tax deductible).

When money is taken by the government in taxes, the taxpayer cuts spending in these categories in reverse order. So a tax bill that, for a working-class person, would mean less spent on luxuries or less money saved, for a very rich person cuts only into his gambling money.

A rich person's money, in other words, isn't worth as much to him as a poorer person's. He can pay a much higher percentage of his income in taxes before he gets to the point where he's actually losing anything of value.

Taxes should be levied so as to do two things: defray government expenses, and do the least possible harm. And that means they should be taken mostly from the rich.

 

[Article 15]

I am perfectly willing to go back to the Clinton tax rates as long as the money is used for debt reduction

As am I.

Are you willing to cut spending to Clinton levels as well because you can't have one without the other.

No.

I am willing to cut spending but not all the way down to Clinton levels. The last budget Clinton submitted was for $1.9 trillion dollars. Under our current tax rates we took in approximately $2.3 trillion last year.

Furthermore, any cutting of spending should be done incrementally over a period of time.

 

[rightwinger]

I am perfectly willing to go back to the Clinton tax rates as long as the money is used for debt reduction

As am I.

Are you willing to cut spending to Clinton levels as well because you can't have one without the other.

I am perfectly willing to reapportion spending to balance the budget. We can start with savings from being in Iraq and Afghanistan for ten years

 

[Mr.Nick]

Actually, it comes down to what is the threat?

How many of those countries are potential threats? How many are potential allies? What is the actual threat to Continental US?

We are telling Americans that they will have to make sacrifices and make do with less as we ran up a $15 trillion debt. Let's revisit why defense is a sacred cow

The only reason why those countries are no threat is because we developed a massive arsenal and have advanced technology.... That shit costs money, and it especially costs money to stay on top of the game as far as technology..

Don't think for a fucking second China wouldn't love to invade the US or a neighboring country and steal their woman...

Don't think for a second our presence in the world hasn't prevented numerous wars, with other countries knowing that we could step in and put a hurt on them, hence the war was never worth it...

Hell, I'm quite sure if we were an isolated nation there would have already been a WWIII..

The reason most of those countries are not threats is because we have been economic and military allies for over 50 years

China has no desires to attack the US. They are incapable of attacking Taiwan and Taiwan is only 90 miles away. Attacking the most powerful nation in history from over 5000 miles away is nonsense

Our presence around the world does prevent wars. But it is high time that the US insist that the other industrialized nations take over that role in their sphere of influence.

Nobody is advocating isolationism. But there is no reason we should force Americans to sacrifice and accumulate debt while we play policeman

And we're only allies because we're so powerful and what makes us powerful is our military and the technology we possess..

Do you really believe geo-politics are about liking a country or a culture????

Funny how we bombed the fuck out of Iraq and not Saudi Arabia, yet we portray that shit as somekind of human rights effort, yet Saudi Arabia is a ultra conservative Sharia nation that demands harsh punishment for anyone who strays from the Sharia faith..

Why do our humanitarian efforts stop at Saudi Arabia?? oh yeah they have lots of oil and I suppose that is the only damn reason why we like them geo-politically..

When it comes to geo-politics - it has nothing to do with friendship and everything to do with "what can you do for me."

 

[peach174]

The more Government brings in the more it spends.
It never goes to paying down the deficit.
The Dem's are not willing to bring down the deficit.

Rebus wanted to cut by 6 trillion in 10 years
Dem's want to cut by 1.2 trillion in 10 years. This is insanity when the deficit is 15 trillion.
They want to bring in 1.5 trillion more in taxes, by the rich in ten years. This does not accomplish anything.

President Obama's plan is to cut 3 trillion over a ten year period.
It would take us 50 years to pay down the deficit with his plan
With the Repubs plan it would take 30 years to pay it down.

How about cutting the trillion each and every year that we are borrowing.
That would take us 15 years to pay it down.

 

[rightwinger]

The only reason why those countries are no threat is because we developed a massive arsenal and have advanced technology.... That shit costs money, and it especially costs money to stay on top of the game as far as technology..

Don't think for a fucking second China wouldn't love to invade the US or a neighboring country and steal their woman...

Don't think for a second our presence in the world hasn't prevented numerous wars, with other countries knowing that we could step in and put a hurt on them, hence the war was never worth it...

Hell, I'm quite sure if we were an isolated nation there would have already been a WWIII..

The reason most of those countries are not threats is because we have been economic and military allies for over 50 years

China has no desires to attack the US. They are incapable of attacking Taiwan and Taiwan is only 90 miles away. Attacking the most powerful nation in history from over 5000 miles away is nonsense

Our presence around the world does prevent wars. But it is high time that the US insist that the other industrialized nations take over that role in their sphere of influence.

Nobody is advocating isolationism. But there is no reason we should force Americans to sacrifice and accumulate debt while we play policeman

And we're only allies because we're so powerful and what makes us powerful is our military and the technology we possess..

Do you really believe geo-politics are about liking a country or a culture????

Funny how we bombed the fuck out of Iraq and not Saudi Arabia, yet we portray that shit as somekind of human rights effort, yet Saudi Arabia is a ultra conservative Sharia nation that demands harsh punishment for anyone who strays from the Sharia faith..

Why do our humanitarian efforts stop at Saudi Arabia?? oh yeah they have lots of oil and I suppose that is the only damn reason why we like them geo-politically..

When it comes to geo-politics - it has nothing to do with friendship and everything to do with "what can you do for me."

Are you that twisted that you think other nations are our allies because we have so many weapons? We are allies because we maintain close ties both economically and militarily. We have each others backs.

I was perfectly willing to go kick some Saudi ass after 9-11. I still am
The public ass kissing that Bush gave the Saudis after 9-11 was humiliating