Hey, 99 Percenters, You Call This 'Fair'?

[OohPooPahDoo]

Hey, 99 Percenters, You Call This 'Fair'?

A study by the New York City Independent Budget Office was released this week, and you didn't hear much about it in the mainstream media because it hurts their candidate's message.

Keep in mind, I'm your Conservative Everyman. I'm no economist, nor am I a political scientist. I call 'em as I see 'em just like you do. And away we go...


New York City has a little more than 8 million residents. Of those many millions, 1% -- ONE PERCENT -- pays 43% of the income taxes. You know how many people that works out to? About 35,000 people.

Picture in your mind's eye the City of New York, not just Manhattan, but all five boroughs. Imagine the throngs here right now enjoying the holidays. Think about the police presence, the sanitation, the schools brimming with children...East Side, West Side, The Village -- a hell of a town! 8 million people!

Now imagine Yankee Stadium, or any average Major League ballpark, and fill it except for the nosebleed seats. That tiny number pays almost HALF the operating costs for the city. How's THAT for fair?

Another kick in the head is that ten percent of New Yorkers pay 71% of the taxes. Guess how much income it takes to crack that ten percent?You don't have to be one of the millionaires or billionaires whom the Divider in Chief loves to vilify. You need not be an evil fat cat making $200,000 -- perish the thought! What's it take to crack the top ten percent in the most expensive city in America? $105,000. Yep, a buck five.​

If you make more money you pay more in income tax. I fail to see what is surprising or unfair about that. All you are really doing is highlighting the income inequality in New York by pointing out a symptom of income inequality - tax inequality.


Would you also be surprised to find out those who own the most property in New York probably also pick up a huge share of the property taxes? Duh. I would be willing to bet those who own more cars pay more in vehicle registration fees and other car related fees to the city, and probably those who smoke the most cigarettes pick up a disproportionately high amount of the cigarette taxes.

New York City has four tax brackets with rates ranging from 2.907% to 3.648%

New York City Income Tax - New York City Income Tax Rates and Credits

Sorry but that's barely even a progressive tax, its nearly flat. If 1% of NYC pays 43% of its income taxes, I'd bet its because 1% makes 20-30% of the entire income in the city.

And there is it: "Income inequality".

Something really should be done about that. Right?

"Income inequality" doesn't exist. Its in quotations. That's how we know its not real. Everyone in NYC actually makes the same income, they just pick on 35k people to get them to pay almost half the taxes because they hate them.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ah I knew I could count on NYcuminhisrear to piss on some veterans again. I knew it.

Unlike some chickenshit chicken hawk like you, I actually served. I can say anything I want, as long as it's true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama will cave...he always does

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will mean a big tax increase for the middle class right before the election. Republicans won't budge on tax increases on the rich and Obama will give in

The election is November, the tax cuts don't expire till the end of the year. Obama will still be president when they expire even if he loses in November. Or he'll be re-elected to his second and final term. He can stick it to the GOP any number of ways.

It will be a major issue right before the election with Republicans screaming that Obama is raising middle class taxes. Obama will not be allowed to duck the decision till after the election

He has no backbone, and he will cave

All the president has to do is say he'll extend all of the Bush tax cuts except the top bracket or for those over 250,000 and he'll be fine politically. That position is on the right side of public opinion.

 

[rightwinger]

The election is November, the tax cuts don't expire till the end of the year. Obama will still be president when they expire even if he loses in November. Or he'll be re-elected to his second and final term. He can stick it to the GOP any number of ways.

It will be a major issue right before the election with Republicans screaming that Obama is raising middle class taxes. Obama will not be allowed to duck the decision till after the election

He has no backbone, and he will cave

All the president has to do is say he'll extend all of the Bush tax cuts except the top bracket or for those over 250,000 and he'll be fine politically. That position is on the right side of public opinion.

That was his position last year......he still caved

 

[thereisnospoon]

Instead of this constant divide of who pays taxes, why are we not discussing cutting spending? I'll tell you why, because the leeches at the top need Big Government want more for themselves and less for everyone else. The trick is how to create propaganda to have the other 50% pay more to keep their Big Government going.

Shrink the government to 5% and who pays will be a moot point.
Then the leeches at the top can fail.

I don't one more thin dime of my tax dollars going to support these leeches.

So you'd be willing to give up getting your welfare check, food stamps and housing assistance? I have to say, I admire a moocher who is willing to finally take some personal responsibility.

Personal Responsibility?
Lol
Don't make me laugh.

If it was not for our government, the leeches at the top that are to big to fail would not know responsibility if it bit them in the behind.

Tell me how buying politicians to tailor laws and regulations to your needs is being responsible?

They buy politicians because they know they could not make it in a truly free market on their own. That is the definition of being irresponsible.

I'm not on Food Stamps, Free Housing etc as one poster put. That would be what is called a leech. They exist at the top and at the bottom, but it appears with 1% owning the majority of the wealth in this country, that the leeches are top heavy and it is time to topple their schemes.

Also, if the government collapsed, It would not effect me one iota. I would head for the woods for an extended period of time until things cooled off. At least my training in the Army served some good uses in that regard.

The elite can then burn in hell for all I care.

Is it safe to assume that ALL politicians including liberals are on the take? Based on your comments.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You are welcome to post your own statistics finger boy

Just back them up, we all know you lie

There are no valid statistics about wealth. People are not required to produce such data, so there simply isn't any accurate information on the subject. Any claims about the distribution of wealth in this country are therefore total bullshit.

You have the entire interweb at your disposal fingerboy...

Show us your wealth statistics that dispute anything I posted. Or else pull up IRS statistics on income distribution in this country

Wealth is NOT distributed. You can post all the silly class warfare graphs and charts you wish.
Absolute waste of time.

 

[rightwinger]

There are no valid statistics about wealth. People are not required to produce such data, so there simply isn't any accurate information on the subject. Any claims about the distribution of wealth in this country are therefore total bullshit.

You have the entire interweb at your disposal fingerboy...

Show us your wealth statistics that dispute anything I posted. Or else pull up IRS statistics on income distribution in this country

Wealth is NOT distributed. You can post all the silly class warfare graphs and charts you wish.
Absolute waste of time.

Look it up

 

[bripat9643]

Ah I knew I could count on NYcuminhisrear to piss on some veterans again. I knew it.

Unlike some chickenshit chicken hawk like you, I actually served. I can say anything I want, as long as it's true.

So anyone who didn't serve is a chickenhawk?

 

[The T]

Ah I knew I could count on NYcuminhisrear to piss on some veterans again. I knew it.

Unlike some chickenshit chicken hawk like you, I actually served. I can say anything I want, as long as it's true.

You sure don't act like it...and um...see the bolded text? Well>? We're waiting.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So,

for all of you who are not rich, but want to cut taxes for the rich, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up for the lost revenue?

Your own?

Perhaps it will sink in when you hear it for the 5,382nd time. Cut spending and make the government live within it's means just like the average citizen. We don't have a revenue issue, we have a spending issue. If you or I spent likr the government, we'd end up in jail. See how easy that was?

That makes a good bumper sticker, but actually we have both a revenue and a spending problem

Ten years ago we intentionally cut our revenue with the foolish expectation that it would spark an economic surge that would make up for the lost revenue. That never happened.......instead we got $3 trillion more debt

No....The revenue problem is created by the spending problem. Revenue is collected. Then it is spent. When revenue is depleted, the federal government goes into debt for more spending. Or it orders the Federal Reserve to create more currency to assist in funding indebtedness.
At the end of the day, the federal government spends irresponsibly.
First problem is, government is over employed probably by 50%. That means half of all two million plus federal workers should be cut from the payroll.
Many federal departments should be eliminated. We do not need a dept of education. Dept of housing and urban development, dept of commerce, a national highway and traffic safety administration, tobacco firearms alcohol bureau, dept of labor( all they do is keep stats) or a federal dept of transportation.....All of these functions can be done at the state level. most are now. So the federal level is redundant. In the case of interstate issues, states can work together and pool their resources.

I submit that the mail could be moved by private contractors. In fact most carriers ARE private contractors. As are most of the haulers of mail over the road.
Oh, is it really necessary for keepers of federal grounds in the City of Washington DC to be federal employees? No..Why should we pay federal benefits to people who cut the grass in the national mall?...BTW the turf and shrub material in the Mall is horrible looking. We are not getting what we pay for.
No..The federal government is bloated and irresponsible.
BTW, i think salaries for Senators and House members should be cut by 50%. Their housing can be a part of the salary. They get a maximum of $1000 per month housing allowance. That's enough to rent an apartment in the city.
No federal employee should be paid more than the prevailing market wage for similar work in the private sector. The market wage for the Wash, DC MSA ir in the case of federal workers elsewhere, the prevailing market wage for the MSA in which they work. For foreign stationed non military, the wage for the Washington DC MSA.
Military pay should be increased to match federal civilian pay.
This would result in a huge savings to taxpayers. Which should result in no more need for additional tax produced revenue..Problem solved.
And now you will screech about all those poor out of work federal employees.
Ok, the federal government supposedly hires the best and brightest. That is the reason the higher than market rate is paid and the benefits are so good. Well, if these people are better and brighter, they should have no problem in the private sector.

 

[Dragon]

Is it safe to assume that ALL politicians including liberals are on the take? Based on your comments.

No, but it's safe to assume that most Democrats are.

 

[Dragon]

Oh, you mean the thread title I copied from the article title. The article title I didn't write.

So do you agree with it or not?

The OP author was wondering if you applied your standards equally across the board.

You don't.

You can't conclude this. If you want my answer, NO, it's not fair that so few people pay such a large share of the taxes. It shouldn't be that way, BECAUSE it's not fair (nor economically healthy) for so few people to have such a large share of the income, and the one follows from the other. Fixing that would also fix the tax imbalance.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That is absolutely a way to get back on good financial footing. Another way is to work harder and get more income. What if ten years ago you were doing well and asked your boss to cut your hours from 40 to 30 hours a week? Now you are in debt.......is it unreasonable to go back to your boss and ask to work 40 hours a week again?

We need to rescind the tax cuts. They did not work and added to our mounting debt

Personal income that you EARNED is a far different thing than the government confiscating more or YOUR money to cover their irresponsible actions. There's the rub. The government doesn't earn anything. They take. It's a necessary evil. When they take, they should only take for what they absolutely have to spend and then spend it responsibly. They don't. Giving them more is simply foolish because it will be blown like all the other money without any spending decrease. It's like helping an alcoholic out by giving him another bottle.

Tell me, when was the last major spending decrease by the federal government? When was the last time they said, "you know, we can't add this program because we don't have the funds in hand to do it"? A much easier task is to find when each new tax, fee, etc. was passed. The government is good at spending. They are lousy at saving. If the government were my wife, I'd divorce her for putting me in bankruptcy.

Did you miss the bogus Super Committee to reduce the national debt? Both sides were able to identify spending cuts that reduced spending by $1 trillion. When it came time to reduce debt through dedicated tax increases, the Republicans ran away

Nice try.....Not true. The bottom line is the Stupid committee was doomed to failure and it was a waste of taxpayer resources to even attempt.
The whole thing was a farce. Obama gave orders to the SC to find not only spending cuts but create a tax increase as well. A tax increase on which Obama would not budge.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So,

for all of you who are not rich, but want to cut taxes for the rich, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up for the lost revenue?

Your own?

I'll do what is necessary, but not while 50% is sitting there contributing NOTHING to this country while reaping the rewards of living in a free country. Nor will I sit by while the rich use the loop holes and subsidies afforded them that they don't need. And they can take a hit just like me.

I will not, however let the small business people take the hit. They are the job makers of this country.

The main reason most Americans who don't pay income taxes don't is because of the deductions, exemptions, and credits they get for having children.

Should we end the tax benefits given for raising children?

End all deductions, arrive at an equitable and just across the board percentage, exempt the first $25,000 for individuals and $50k for married filing jointly and that's that.
The income tax return could fit on one piece of paper. We could fire 90% of the IRS employees and close all but three IRS processing centers. Keep on the East, one in the Midwest and one in the West.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why anyone would be surprised or upset about wealth distribution is beyond rational.
We have for what 30-40 years now participating in the dumbing down of our children,Keeping scores at Little luege games was no longer acceptable.Test scores might hurt little Johnny's feelings,can't play certain games in Gym class might hurt little Johnny's feelings,it goes on and on. We have participated in raising generational slackers,not all have bought into slackerdom and have excelled way past the rest
Why would anyone be upset or surprised
.

Horseshit.

The reason for the inequity in income distribution is the lowering of taxes for the rich by Reagan and Bush and the systematic destruction of the labor unions.

Unions wrecked themselves.
BTW, the country was never all that unionized anyway. At peak, just over 30% of the labor force was union..

 

[thereisnospoon]

Don't show graphs.... it only pisses them off. Because they are too ******* STUPID... yes, I will repeat... STUPID to understand that when you have a large majority of people with good wages and disposable income... it helps the country.

How? they might ask?... let me count the ways....

1. A larger tax base to procure revenue to run the country... more people properly employed and properly paid means LESS PEOPLE on the government dole... that, in turn means... LESS SPENDING ON THOSE DEADBEATS they hate so much.

2. More people properly employed and properly paid means MORE DISPOSABLE INCOME. That's right wingnuts... the more money people have at their disposal, the more they spend... which in turn makes money for those that run business.

You see, the problem ISN'T the government. The issue is with people at the top who think that they shouldn't have limits, but have no problem severely limiting the people under them so that they can achieve MORE.

That is nothing more than short sighted, "get it while you can", "take the money and run" economics. Sure... those fuckers clean up in the short term... but the long term consequences are that the next person in line for the money grab has to make a decision to sell his soul to the Devil for his/her prosperity and let the people under him/her(and the country as a whole) slip a little lower on the food chain, or wait a little longer for their wealth so that those everyday people....

A. Live a better life.

B. give back, in the form of spending and tax revenues.


Face it PUBES(a most fitting moniker), the more WE THE PEOPLE have to begin with, means the less THE RICH will have to pay to uncle Sam.

You are a pro big government throw money down a rat hole hack.
You think government is there for you. It is not. Government exists because we allow it..The US Constitution states that very clearly and pointedly in the 10th Amendment.
You really think the federal government's best interest is more people working and thus financial independence? Yer kidding right?
The fact is that government's number one hindrance is a financially secure non dependent population. Government needs to have dependency in order to function.
And please don't try to convince us that only the GOP is served by the wealthy. That's vapid and it just ain't so.
Oh....You stated the top "wants no limits"..Limits to what?

 

[The T]

Don't show graphs.... it only pisses them off. Because they are too ******* STUPID... yes, I will repeat... STUPID to understand that when you have a large majority of people with good wages and disposable income... it helps the country.

How? they might ask?... let me count the ways....

1. A larger tax base to procure revenue to run the country... more people properly employed and properly paid means LESS PEOPLE on the government dole... that, in turn means... LESS SPENDING ON THOSE DEADBEATS they hate so much.

2. More people properly employed and properly paid means MORE DISPOSABLE INCOME. That's right wingnuts... the more money people have at their disposal, the more they spend... which in turn makes money for those that run business.

You see, the problem ISN'T the government. The issue is with people at the top who think that they shouldn't have limits, but have no problem severely limiting the people under them so that they can achieve MORE.

That is nothing more than short sighted, "get it while you can", "take the money and run" economics. Sure... those fuckers clean up in the short term... but the long term consequences are that the next person in line for the money grab has to make a decision to sell his soul to the Devil for his/her prosperity and let the people under him/her(and the country as a whole) slip a little lower on the food chain, or wait a little longer for their wealth so that those everyday people....

A. Live a better life.

B. give back, in the form of spending and tax revenues.


Face it PUBES(a most fitting moniker), the more WE THE PEOPLE have to begin with, means the less THE RICH will have to pay to uncle Sam.

You are a pro big government throw money down a rat hole hack.
You think government is there for you. It is not. Government exists because we allow it..The US Constitution states that very clearly and pointedly in the 10th Amendment.
You really think the federal government's best interest is more people working and thus financial independence? Yer kidding right?
The fact is that government's number one hindrance is a financially secure non dependent population. Government needs to have dependency in order to function.
And please don't try to convince us that only the GOP is served by the wealthy. That's vapid and it just ain't so.
Oh....You stated the top "wants no limits"..Limits to what?

The 10th became somewhat neutered after the 17th Amendment was ushered in. It needs to be done away with as well.

 

[Cuyo]

Guess you didn't read the thread, huh?

Sure I did. You opened with the old x% pays y% and indicated that you think that's unfair. I dismantled that argument mathematically and even showed that New York City and State both have tax structures that are, for the sake of this argument, flat.

You've been flailing ever since, and that brings us up to right now.

I indicated that I think it's unfair? Where did I do that? The productive are always going to have to support the less- or non-productive. That's a fact of life. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

It was the premise of the entire OP, and the thread title is "Hey 99 Percenters, You call This 'Fair'?"

Sorry if you think I took liberty with my assumption, but I don't see any other way to take it.

 

[Cuyo]

Oh, you mean the thread title I copied from the article title. The article title I didn't write.

So do you agree with it or not?

The OP author was wondering if you applied your standards equally across the board.

You don't.

You can't conclude this. If you want my answer, NO, it's not fair that so few people pay such a large share of the taxes. It shouldn't be that way, BECAUSE it's not fair (nor economically healthy) for so few people to have such a large share of the income, and the one follows from the other. Fixing that would also fix the tax imbalance.

Spot-on...

 

[thereisnospoon]

So,

for all of you who are not rich, but want to cut taxes for the rich, whose taxes do you want to raise to make up for the lost revenue?

Your own?

Right. The argument the class envy people on the left always rely on.
Here's the rub...Government does NOT have a revenue problem. Clearly it is a SPENDING problem.
Those on the left, the "tax more" crowd, never want to answer the question "why should inefficiency be rewarded".
How is it that those on the political left have designs on the privately "share of the nation's wealth" while saying nothing in opposition to the federal government's "share of the nation's wealth"....

Wrong.

Reagan and Bush cut taxes for the rich which created 90% of the National Debt.

It also resulted in 80% of the increase in after tax income going to the rich over the last 30 years.

As a result income inequity is at its highest level since 1929.

Yes yes yes....You can go on believing that if it makes you feel better..
"It's not a lie....if you believe it."
There is no such thing as "income inequity" or "income inequality"..
There is no such thing as "share of national wealth"...No such thing as "share".
There is no such thing as the zero sum game