Facts that PROVE the rich are NOT paying their fair share

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,192
Reaction score
7,036
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Sadly, they are paying WAY more than their fair share, while the lazy parasite class (ie liberals, progressives, Democrats, etc.) are along for the free ride in this country. These are numbers directly from the IRS and cannot be disputed:

The top 1% of EARNERS (key word here parasites - the wealthy EARN their wealth - they don't "have it" as you idiots like to say) pay almost 40% of all taxes.

The top 10% of EARNERS pay 70% of all taxes!!!

Meanwhile, the filthy liberal, progressive, Democrat lazy parasites earn 13% of the wealth but pay only 3%

This is ridiculously unfair. If they earn 13% of the wealth, they should shoulder the burden for 13% of the taxes. How can these idiot parasites complain the wealthy don't pay their fair share when the top 1% pays nearly 40% of all taxes, and the top 10% pays an asinine 70%?!?!?! More proof of how stupid the idiot liberal, progressive, Democrat parasites are....

What the Top 10 Percent of Earners Really Pay in Taxes
 
R

rdean

Guest
Those top 10% buy politicians to change laws so they can legally screw the American people.

Right winger drooling morons are simply too fucking stupid to ever get that.

But lets look at some facts.

The economic meltdown led by Wall Street. How can trillions be taken out of the economy without anyone going to jail? Because what used to be against the law isn't. Not anymore.

How can the US Chamber of Commerce, financed by China, Russia and India, give tens of millions to Republican politicians 10 to 1 over Democrats, but then say, "Oh, we keep our money in "separate" accounts". Oh sure. Somehow, they come up with tens of millions of dollars from these countries. It disappears, but none of it ends up paying Republican politicians. Thanks to the Supreme Court, they get to keep their accounting secret. A conservative Supreme Court that has shown itself to be the most partisan in history, voting again and again 5 to 4.

Health care companies don't make anything. They down employ any doctors. They make their money from skimming insurance policies. How can such a CEO receive a paycheck for $100,000,000.00? How is that legally possible? Because NOW it's "legal".

Notice Republicans don't even seem to know that "supply and demand" is the foundation of capitalism. No wonder they see these scams as "capitalism" and as long as it's legal, it's OK! The fuckers.

It's not about how hard you work or how thrifty you are. It's about how much money you have and who you can pay off.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,192
Reaction score
7,036
Points
1,860
Location
United States
CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...

Look at the history of taxation in America. See that they are paying less than they have ever paid before.

Et voila - there are your 'facts.'
Thank you for a sublimly ignorant post! Look at the history of America - we kept black people as slaves. So by your ignorant rationale, we should bring back slavery because that's what we used to have.

Just because there was terribly injustice in history brought to us by radical left-wing parasites of the past, doesn't mean we should continue those injustices. And just because the injustice now is not quite as bad as before doesn't mean it's ok. To keep with the analogy, that would be like saying things are better now because people are only allowed 1 slave as opposed to unlimited slaves. It's STILL a great injustice. Just like this tax system were the parasite class earns 13% of the wealth but only carries 3% of the tax burden.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,192
Reaction score
7,036
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Those top 10% buy politicians to change laws so they can legally screw the American people.

Right winger drooling morons are simply too fucking stupid to ever get that.

But lets look at some facts.

The economic meltdown led by Wall Street. How can trillions be taken out of the economy without anyone going to jail? Because what used to be against the law isn't. Not anymore.

How can the US Chamber of Commerce, financed by China, Russia and India, give tens of millions to Republican politicians 10 to 1 over Democrats, but then say, "Oh, we keep our money in "separate" accounts". Oh sure. Somehow, they come up with tens of millions of dollars from these countries. It disappears, but none of it ends up paying Republican politicians. Thanks to the Supreme Court, they get to keep their accounting secret. A conservative Supreme Court that has shown itself to be the most partisan in history, voting again and again 5 to 4.

Health care companies don't make anything. They down employ any doctors. They make their money from skimming insurance policies. How can such a CEO receive a paycheck for $100,000,000.00? How is that legally possible? Because NOW it's "legal".

Notice Republicans don't even seem to know that "supply and demand" is the foundation of capitalism. No wonder they see these scams as "capitalism" and as long as it's legal, it's OK! The fuckers.

It's not about how hard you work or how thrifty you are. It's about how much money you have and who you can pay off.
You're quote is as ignorant as you are. It's not Republicans job to "do something for others". It's YOUR job to get your lazy, pathetic, parasite ass up out of bed and do for YOURSELF. You lazy liberals make me sick. You've been blessed with the greatest country in the world that allows you to pursue anything you want, and you're all too damn lazy to get out of bed. You want Republicans to "do for you".
 

GeorgiaBoy

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
112
Reaction score
17
Points
16
YES!!!!!!
I have such a problem with this!
Why should the rich pay SOOOO much more for a "product" they use less of. The poor are the ones that need government programs but the rich are the ones funding them!
I for one think it is ridiculous!
 

Inthemiddle

Rookie
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
6,354
Reaction score
675
Points
0
Sadly, they are paying WAY more than their fair share, while the lazy parasite class (ie liberals, progressives, Democrats, etc.) are along for the free ride in this country.
You mean like Warren Buffet?

The top 1% of EARNERS (key word here parasites - the wealthy EARN their wealth - they don't "have it" as you idiots like to say)
1) If you're going to start off with emotionally charged terms, you lose the right to stake claims to facts.

2) You have to SPEND money to MAKE money, right? So it stands to reason that those who MAKE the most HAD the most to spend.

The top 10% of EARNERS pay 70% of all taxes!!!
And the top 10% MAKE how much of total income?

Meanwhile, the filthy liberal, progressive, Democrat lazy parasites earn 13% of the wealth but pay only 3%
Like Warren Buffet?

This is ridiculously unfair. If they earn 13% of the wealth, they should shoulder the burden for 13% of the taxes. How can these idiot parasites complain the wealthy don't pay their fair share when the top 1% pays nearly 40% of all taxes, and the top 10% pays an asinine 70%?!?!?! More proof of how stupid the idiot liberal, progressive, Democrat parasites are....
Like Warren Buffet?

[/QUOTE]

You said you had facts and figures from the IRS. All you're offering is the proclamations of a blogger. Here are some facts and figures directly from the IRS. Some interesting things to note.

The TOP category of gross taxes generated is the $100-$200 group. Comes out to a tax rate of 17.6% of taxable income. Not exactly the big deal you're trying to make it out to be.
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
The top 1% of EARNERS . . . pay almost 40% of all taxes.

The top 10% of EARNERS pay 70% of all taxes
You left out of the picture how much of the income they receive.

In anticipation for when you correct that omission, I'll leave you with the thoughts of a great liberal economist from the past on the subject of taxation:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. … It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
 

Inthemiddle

Rookie
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
6,354
Reaction score
675
Points
0
YES!!!!!!
I have such a problem with this!
Why should the rich pay SOOOO much more for a "product" they use less of. The poor are the ones that need government programs but the rich are the ones funding them!
I for one think it is ridiculous!
Where is the logic in what you're trying to imply? Tax the poor who use benefits because of their low income, to pay for those benefits being used? That is not how to run a society. It's how to "cleanse" a society.

And let's be honest, entitlements are not the mega portion of government spending that people try to make it out to be. Social Security and Medicare do take a sizeable chuck, but those are things that are available to even the richest person. The only people who use them without paying into them are the disabled. I really hope you're not going to suggest we fuck over the disabled.
 

GeorgiaBoy

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
112
Reaction score
17
Points
16
The top 1% of EARNERS . . . pay almost 40% of all taxes.

The top 10% of EARNERS pay 70% of all taxes
You left out of the picture how much of the income they receive.

In anticipation for when you correct that omission, I'll leave you with the thoughts of a great liberal economist from the past on the subject of taxation:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. … It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
EHHHHH. Incorrect. The amount the EARN! The bottom feeders with all their entitlement programs are the ones that RECEIVE
 

GeorgiaBoy

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
112
Reaction score
17
Points
16
YES!!!!!!
I have such a problem with this!
Why should the rich pay SOOOO much more for a "product" they use less of. The poor are the ones that need government programs but the rich are the ones funding them!
I for one think it is ridiculous!
Where is the logic in what you're trying to imply? Tax the poor who use benefits because of their low income, to pay for those benefits being used? That is not how to run a society. It's how to "cleanse" a society.

And let's be honest, entitlements are not the mega portion of government spending that people try to make it out to be. Social Security and Medicare do take a sizeable chuck, but those are things that are available to even the richest person. The only people who use them without paying into them are the disabled. I really hope you're not going to suggest we fuck over the disabled.
My logic is that we all pay a fair amount. Left wingers want the rich to pay even more when they don't even use what they pay for.
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
EHHHHH. Incorrect. The amount the EARN! The bottom feeders with all their entitlement programs are the ones that RECEIVE
So a Wall Street financial manipulator who plays games with other people's money an rakes off a percentage is "earning" that money, while someone who holds down a full-time job is not?

So an industrialist who outsources jobs to a third world country where he can pay $1.50 an hour or less, and reduces production while increasing profit margins, is "earning" that money, while the people he laid off who used to work on his factory floors didn't?

So, in general, gaming the system, skimming from the labor of others, and playing financial shell-games is "earning," but honest labor is not?

Easy to see where you're coming from, bucko. :tongue:
 

Mr.Nick

VIP Member
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
9,604
Reaction score
714
Points
83
YES!!!!!!
I have such a problem with this!
Why should the rich pay SOOOO much more for a "product" they use less of. The poor are the ones that need government programs but the rich are the ones funding them!
I for one think it is ridiculous!
Where is the logic in what you're trying to imply? Tax the poor who use benefits because of their low income, to pay for those benefits being used? That is not how to run a society. It's how to "cleanse" a society.

And let's be honest, entitlements are not the mega portion of government spending that people try to make it out to be. Social Security and Medicare do take a sizeable chuck, but those are things that are available to even the richest person. The only people who use them without paying into them are the disabled. I really hope you're not going to suggest we fuck over the disabled.
I love how you MIS-quote me in your sig...

Take my words off your sig now...

For the record what I said was - if someone wants a government handout they should have to meet a requirement and if not using drugs is one of those requirements then sobeit.

Employment drug testing is just intrusive and unnecessary, however private companies can set their own standards I suppose.
 

GeorgiaBoy

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
112
Reaction score
17
Points
16
EHHHHH. Incorrect. The amount the EARN! The bottom feeders with all their entitlement programs are the ones that RECEIVE
So a Wall Street financial manipulator who plays games with other people's money an rakes off a percentage is "earning" that money, while someone who holds down a full-time job is not?

So an industrialist who outsources jobs to a third world country where he can pay $1.50 an hour or less, and reduces production while increasing profit margins, is "earning" that money, while the people he laid off who used to work on his factory floors didn't?

So, in general, gaming the system, skimming from the labor of others, and playing financial shell-games is "earning," but honest labor is not?

Easy to see where you're coming from, bucko. :tongue:
Ha. I work 50 hours a week and live below the poverty line. Do I take government assistance? No. My problem is not with the man that works his whole life and has blisters on every part of his hands. I have no problem with a man with pride that does all he can and doesn't take help. My problem is the person that won't accept his responsibilities and lives off the government.
 

Inthemiddle

Rookie
Joined
Oct 4, 2011
Messages
6,354
Reaction score
675
Points
0
You're quote is as ignorant as you are. It's not Republicans job to "do something for others".


It's YOUR job to get your lazy, pathetic, parasite ass up out of bed and do for YOURSELF.
And what makes you think that any given person is not already doing this as much as is possible? You assume that poor people are such and such, but without any evidence. Why do you insist on making this class warfare?

You lazy liberals make me sick.
I have several friends who are pretty liberal. They're all hard working, decent people. I think the problem is that you're already sick. You probably have some major emotional illness going on and should seek out a doctor.

You've been blessed with the greatest country in the world that allows you to pursue anything you want
That's not true. Our society only allows you to pursue those things for which you can already pay. And considering that often times the pay can be very expensive, social programs are necessary in order to allow a greater portion of the citizenry to pursue what they want and sometimes what they need. But you're hellbent on engaging in class warfare. You want to deny the same opportunity to the poor and blame it on them that you've hindered them. You want to insist that they are undeserving, that they are lesser people, that they are inherently unworthy. You throw every bad name you can at them in order to justify not allowing them to have an equal opportunity.

and you're all too damn lazy to get out of bed.
See what I mean? :eusa_whistle: You're making assumptions about people you don't even know. You know, one of my family members is heavily dependent on government entitlements. He's fully disabled, has been since he was an infant. He CAN'T get out of bed without the help of a caregiver and specialized equipment. He works harder each day just to scratch his head than you do all week. Stop the blind hatred, go get a shrink, and work out your issues.

You want Republicans to "do for you".
Why are you making this a partisan thing? I think what most people want is for society to establish for itself policies and practices that allow us to function as a SOCIETY where we all can contribute a reasonable degree based on our ability to do so, to help take care of each other.

I have, at times, witnessed car accidents. I wasn't alone in pulling over to offer help, a couple times even having to offer first aid. They weren't people I knew. But they are fellow members of my community. I was happy to help, and so were the others who offered their help as well. Once, I was in a car accident. Flipped my car. I was grateful when people stopped to help me. But thank god for the government services of the police, fire, and rescue departments who were there. As great as individual action is, our society benefits from having government run professional operations.
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
Ha. I work 50 hours a week and live below the poverty line.
Christ on a crutch, man -- and you say you don't see any problem with that? You don't think there's something wrong with the system, something rotten in this country, when a person can work 50 hours a week and be in poverty?

YOU are a living example of what these protests are all about.

YOU are the 99%.

Wake up!
 

GeorgiaBoy

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
112
Reaction score
17
Points
16
Ha. I work 50 hours a week and live below the poverty line.
Christ on a crutch, man -- and you say you don't see any problem with that? You don't think there's something wrong with the system, something rotten in this country, when a person can work 50 hours a week and be in poverty?

YOU are a living example of what these protests are all about.

YOU are the 99%.

Wake up!
I am making something of myself. THIS IS WHY ALL THESE PEOPLE CRYING FOR ASSISTANCE PISS ME OFFF!!! I went to Georgia State for a year. Then I lost my scholarship because I went through some crap and was unfocused. So I went to work full-time because I refuse to go into debt. I work 50 hours saving as much as I can so I can GO BACK TO SCHOOL and make something of myself. I don't want help. I am fine on my own. My ancestors didn't need help and I sure won't take a handout. I don't think school is my right. I don't think having money is my right. I think working your a$$ off to become what I want to be is my right. And as everyone here as my witness I will reach my dreams without the governments help. I may struggle. Yeah. Its hard. But whatever. Its all worth it.
 

Mr.Nick

VIP Member
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
9,604
Reaction score
714
Points
83
Ha. I work 50 hours a week and live below the poverty line.
Christ on a crutch, man -- and you say you don't see any problem with that? You don't think there's something wrong with the system, something rotten in this country, when a person can work 50 hours a week and be in poverty?

YOU are a living example of what these protests are all about.

YOU are the 99%.

Wake up!
You do realize the idea is to work your way up the ladder?

Of course in your delusion people should start off in life working at McDonalds making 50k a year flipping burgers..

Do you really believe for a nanosecond that people should be paid 50k a year doing remedial work??

The consumer will just end up paying more for the product or service...

You think wages are some sort of choice????

It's all based on supply and demand....
 

Dragon

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
5,481
Reaction score
578
Points
48
I am making something of myself. THIS IS WHY ALL THESE PEOPLE CRYING FOR ASSISTANCE PISS ME OFFF!!!
You don't have a CLUE what they're crying for. Let me help you with that.

They are crying because someone willing to work 50 hour weeks should NOT be living in poverty.

They are crying because over the past 30 years wages have declined while corporate profits have soared -- which is WHY you are living in poverty even though you work 50 hours a week.

They are crying because the banks ruined the economy and things are worse than ever, but the people responsible are making record profits after being bailed out by the government.

I'm glad you are willing to work so hard to make something of your life -- good on you. But the fact that you are living in poverty even so means there is something very, very wrong. And that wrong needs to be righted.

When I was what I suspect is your age, Georgia boy, my father worked only 40 hours a week in a blue collar job and was able to own a home, own two cars, let my mother stay home with the kids, raise three kids, and send all of us to college.

That is the way it should be. Working 50 hours a week and living in poverty is NOT the way it should be. And that is what these protests are about.
 
Last edited:

Mr Clean

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
15,950
Reaction score
3,953
Points
290
EHHHHH. Incorrect. The amount the EARN! The bottom feeders with all their entitlement programs are the ones that RECEIVE
So a Wall Street financial manipulator who plays games with other people's money an rakes off a percentage is "earning" that money, while someone who holds down a full-time job is not?

So an industrialist who outsources jobs to a third world country where he can pay $1.50 an hour or less, and reduces production while increasing profit margins, is "earning" that money, while the people he laid off who used to work on his factory floors didn't?

So, in general, gaming the system, skimming from the labor of others, and playing financial shell-games is "earning," but honest labor is not?

Easy to see where you're coming from, bucko. :tongue:
Ha. I work 50 hours a week and live below the poverty line. Do I take government assistance? No. My problem is not with the man that works his whole life and has blisters on every part of his hands. I have no problem with a man with pride that does all he can and doesn't take help. My problem is the person that won't accept his responsibilities and lives off the government.
Maybe you should go 60 hours a week plus weekends to show you're a "team player" and you might move up that ladder.

Until, of course, you employer finds a cheaper way to do your job and then it's out the door you go.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top