francoHFW
Diamond Member
God you dittoheads are dumb...Marxist is a tipoff...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
God you dittoheads are dumb...Marxist is a tipoff...
I guess no one told him that the top 1% pay 38% of all Federal income taxes or that $200,000 does not make you rich when combined taxes already take $100,000 and your mortgage takes $70,000 for an average house on East or West Coast.
yes and diminish their ability to create jobs
And there's another myth.
The guy signing the paychecks doesn't "create" the jobs he's signing the checks for. The consumers who buy the products that the employee will produce with his labor, they're the ones who created the job. If there was no market for the products, the employee would get laid off. If the market increased, someone else would be hired.
The rich don't create jobs. The middle class and working class, who represent the bulk of consumers, create jobs.
Apparently it requires a good deal more effort than you are giving it.
Statistical inversion. That's the fallacy involving using the wrong categories to ask a question. You're asking "what share of the total tax burden is paid by the rich?" when you should instead be asking "what share of their income do the rich pay?"
You do see that these are not the same question, right?
The reason that the rich pay such a large share of the total income tax burden is not because they're taxed at a high rate, but simply because they hog such a large share of the total income.
A huge share of the total income = a huge share of the total income tax. It has nothing to do with whether they are taxed fairly or not, merely how skewed our income distribution is in this country.
What share of the total income tax is paid by the rich means nothing. Zip. Nada. Squat.
It's not even worth talking about. Instead, we need to talk about what share of their total income they pay in taxes. That will tell us:
1) How much more they can pay, if necessary, before they are seriously inconvenienced.
2) Whether they pay a larger or smaller share of their income than the non-rich, and by how much.
3) If taxes must be raised, how much it will hurt the rich to tax them, compared to how much it would hurt to raise the taxes of the non-rich.
These are the important things to consider when asking whether to raise taxes on the rich, along with the state of the federal budget and what we need to spend revenues on. And none of them can be answered by asking how much of the total tax burden is paid by the rich.
Yeah, what's the fair share?
I guess no one told him that the top 1% pay 38% of all Federal income taxes or that $200,000 does not make you rich when combined taxes already take $100,000 and your mortgage takes $70,000 for an average house on East or West Coast.
We have been cutting back on the taxes the rich have paid for 30 years.
During that time we have accumulated $14 trillion in debt. Guess what? It ain't working
$200,000 does not make ya rich. But guess what? It was Republicans who put them into the same tax bracket as the super wealthy. Why? So that they could bitch about the poor guy making $200,000 not being rich and hold down the taxes paid by a guy making $20 mil
consumers, create jobs. Taxing the rich does not kill jobs.
That's not necessarily true. The business owners who innovate and either provide greater value for services (cell phone plans with free long distance, a novel idea 20 years ago started by a company run in a garage) or provide new products and services (facebook) create jobs.
It is still the demand that creates jobs.
so then why be so afraid to answer the question?
but you forgot to say why you feel that way? Why should the rich pay more to the government when they use less of it and need less of it?
of course but so what?????????
why "hog" when they earn it in voluntary transactions? People love what Steve Jobs sells or they would not buy it?
We depend on the rich.
THe Soviets tried your backwards way and 40 million slowly starved to death.
The more you take capital from those who know how to use it for those who don't the poorer everyone gets.
demand is common, constant and eternal.
LET'S TAX THE SHIT OUT OF THE RICH!!!!!" [/FONT][/COLOR][/B][/I][/SIZE]
yes and diminish their ability to create jobs, but, we can always hope the Girl Scouts will fill the void with new jobs and products!!
demand is common, constant and eternal.
No. Demand is a variable. It's the desire to buy plus the ability to buy. If my income doubles, so will my ability to buy goods. That will increase demand.
By the way, do you know what the name "Brutus" means in Latin?
I guess no one told him that the top 1% pay 38% of all Federal income taxes or that $200,000 does not make you rich when combined taxes already take $100,000 and your mortgage takes $70,000 for an average house on East or West Coast.
We have been cutting back on the taxes the rich have paid for 30 years.
That's not true. We've been cutting the top marginal rates paid, not the share in taxes "the rich" have been paying.
National Taxpayers Union - Who Pays Income Taxes?
During that time we have accumulated $14 trillion in debt. Guess what? It ain't working
Overspending is the problem, not tax receipts.
$200,000 does not make ya rich. But guess what? It was Republicans who put them into the same tax bracket as the super wealthy. Why? So that they could bitch about the poor guy making $200,000 not being rich and hold down the taxes paid by a guy making $20 mil
True. I'm not a fan of the GOP's tax policies. The GOP is the clear lessor of two evils. However Obama seems to have no problem going along. Is that just so he can blame someone else?
Yea, but how much do they make using roads built by middle class? Using bridges and electricity from a grid and dams built by a middle class? Making money from factories built and staffed with the middle class? Being protected by firemen and police from the middle class? In a country where the middle class send their young off to war to protect that wealth the rich accrued with the help of, you guess it, the middle class?
The middle class paid with blood, sweat and the lives of their children. The rich can pay their fair share.
You know you right wingers aren't rich. But you are fools.
so then why be so afraid to answer the question?
I did answer the question. They can be undertaxed while at the same time paying a large share of the total taxes, because the two have nothing to do with each other, and your entire line of reasoning is fallacious.
but you forgot to say why you feel that way? Why should the rich pay more to the government when they use less of it and need less of it?
Because they can. Taxes are not a fee-for-use. They are a social obligation that all of us have to the community. Those who gain more from the community should pay more to support the public services that the community needs and wants.
So the question I asked is the right one, and the one you asked, not being the same question, is the wrong one.
Does Steve Jobs produce iPhones and iMacs and all that stuff all by himself? Does Apple have no employees? No. It is Apple, not Jobs, that produces those products, and Apple means everyone who works for Apple. That Jobs owns Apple (or whatever share of it he does) is merely a legal fiction.
On the contrary, they depend on us. The rich don't create jobs, consumers create jobs, which mostly means the middle class and working class. Look past the name on your paycheck to understand the real reason why you even have one: not because some fat cat "gave" you a job out of the goodness of his heart, but because people want to buy the products your labor produces.
THe Soviets tried your backwards way and 40 million slowly starved to death.
First, the Soviet Union had no taxes. Second, the way they organized their economy in no way resembles the way I would. Third, Stalin's engineered famines (which killed nowhere near 40 million by the way) did not arise from economic inefficiency but from cold and cruel calculation as the price of industrializing very, very fast so the country would be able to fight the Nazis when they had to.
The more you take capital from those who know how to use it for those who don't the poorer everyone gets.
Wrong. As I said above, the factor that creates jobs isn't money in the pockets of the rich, it's consumer demand. Take about half of the income from the top 1% of the country and spread it equally among everyone else, and the economy would prosper dramatically.
The reason for this, again, is that businesses hire because there is demand for the products to be produced, NOT because they happen to have money lying around. The question is not whether they CAN invest in new jobs, but whether they WILL. Money in their pockets doesn't affect this. Money in the pockets of a great many ordinary people, however, does.