Middle Class Law Suit for being forced to subsidize the Rich with taxes.

[EdwardBaiamonte]

grand majority of businessfollks in the US are adversely affected by a game that favors unfairly the BIG GUYS.

since Republicans favor capitalism while Democrats favor stuff like huge crony capitalist Obamacare you must agree that the Democrats create 100% of the games, as you call them.

 

[KevinWestern]

Crony capitalism is bad. The solution is not to have the government steal more money from the rich, but to decrease government power over the economy.

You know what, I'm fine with a flat tax if crony capitalism could be put under control. However, until that happens I'm voting for a progressive tax rate. The ultra rich may have to pay more to their government, but they get a whole lot more back in return (through laws that favor them).

Not sure if you're aware, but my examples were most of the top wealthiest Americans.

Yes, but they are the exception to the norm and don't disprove that a grand majority of businessfollks in the US are adversely affected by a game that favors unfairly the BIG GUYS.

Coincidence that all my examples, at the top of the wealth heap, didn't get there through cronyism?

Again, you listed a few exceptions to the rule that are so rare they don't apply to the larger, general population. And too (forgot to mention last time)... Wal-Mart ? You're going to sit here and say Wal-Mart doesn't participate in ANY Congressional lobbying or crony capitalism?

 

[KevinWestern]

grand majority of businessfollks in the US are adversely affected by a game that favors unfairly the BIG GUYS.

since Republicans favor capitalism while Democrats favor stuff like huge crony capitalist Obamacare you must agree that the Democrats create 100% of the games, as you call them.

Seriously Edward? Republicans don't partake in Crony Capitalism? Surely you can't be serious.

Not sure what planet you're from, or what country you live in, but it's not Earth or the United States...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're going to sit here and say Wal-Mart doesn't participate in ANY Congressional lobbying or crony capitalism?

If they do its because Democrats put so much power in Washington!
If we had a Republican capitalist system Washington could not do favors for the highest bidder.

 

[KevinWestern]

You're going to sit here and say Wal-Mart doesn't participate in ANY Congressional lobbying or crony capitalism?

If they do its because Democrats put so much power in Washington!
If we had a Republican capitalist system Washington could not do favors for the highest bidder.

Really Edward?

Comments like these make me think you're simply trying to "shake up" things for the heck of it.

The Republicans are just as much involved in Crony Capitalism as the Dems. Both sides need campaign money, right? I mean, your claim is so ridiculous that I can't even take it seriously..

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're going to sit here and say Wal-Mart doesn't participate in ANY Congressional lobbying or crony capitalism?

If they do its because Democrats put so much power in Washington!
If we had a Republican capitalist system Washington could not do favors for the highest bidder.

Really Edward?

Comments like these make me think you're simply trying to "shake up" things for the heck of it.

The Republicans are just as much involved in Crony Capitalism as the Dems. Both sides need campaign money, right? I mean, your claim is so ridiculous that I can't even take it seriously..

dear Republicans sign the pledge, Democrats don't! Republicans introduce Balanced Budget Amendments, liberals don't!! Sorry 100% of Republicans voted against crony capitalist Obamacare!!

 

[bripat9643]

What the Koch's want is less communism. Everyone who gives money to politicians do it because they want the politicians to do what the donors want. What specific measures did Congress pass that made the Koch's billionaires?

The Misinformation Voter always plays dumb.

Back at G H W Bush's term, the Koch Bros along with Enron got the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, headed by Wendy Gramm, to exempt energy futures contracts from government regulation. A few years later Sen Phil Gramm creates the "Enron Loophole" which put over the counter energy derivatives beyond any government regulation through private unregulated exchanges.

The Koch brothers weren't billionaires before the "Enron Loophole"?

There's no such thing as the "Enron loophole." Even if there was, Clinton would have had to sign the bill.

Liberals like to bleat their knee-jerk list of right-wing demons like "deregulation," "the Koch Brothers," "Enron" and "Phill Gramm." It's a convenient substitute for actual thought.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You know what, I'm fine with a flat tax if crony capitalism could be put under control. However, until that happens I'm voting for a progressive tax rate. The ultra rich may have to pay more to their government, but they get a whole lot more back in return (through laws that favor them).



Yes, but they are the exception to the norm and don't disprove that a grand majority of businessfollks in the US are adversely affected by a game that favors unfairly the BIG GUYS.

Coincidence that all my examples, at the top of the wealth heap, didn't get there through cronyism?

Again, you listed a few exceptions to the rule that are so rare they don't apply to the larger, general population. And too (forgot to mention last time)... Wal-Mart ? You're going to sit here and say Wal-Mart doesn't participate in ANY Congressional lobbying or crony capitalism?

WalMart became the biggest retailer in the world because Congress changed the rules to benefit them?
Any examples?

 

[boedicca]

This thread cries out for The Tax Fable:

Suppose that everyday 10 men go to PJ's for lunch. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. The 10 men ate lunch in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now lunch for the 10 would costs only $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings between the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share?

The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be only fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount that each paid and he started to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks."

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."

The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up. The next day he didn't show up for lunch, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean....

A Tax Fable

 

[edthecynic]

The Misinformation Voter always plays dumb.

Back at G H W Bush's term, the Koch Bros along with Enron got the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, headed by Wendy Gramm, to exempt energy futures contracts from government regulation. A few years later Sen Phil Gramm creates the "Enron Loophole" which put over the counter energy derivatives beyond any government regulation through private unregulated exchanges.

The Koch brothers weren't billionaires before the "Enron Loophole"?

There's no such thing as the "Enron loophole." Even if there was, Clinton would have had to sign the bill.

Liberals like to bleat their knee-jerk list of right-wing demons like "deregulation," "the Koch Brothers," "Enron" and "Phill Gramm." It's a convenient substitute for actual thought.

BULLSHIT!!!

Gramm attached a 262-page amendment to the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which was then attached with no public scrutiny or committee hearings to an omnibus spending bill that was signed into law by President Clinton.

 

[The Professor]

If a rich person Mitt Romney only pays 13% & a middle class person KissMy pays 28%, the middle class is subsidizing the rich.

Average person pays 11.4% tax according to Krugman chart,(link below) Romney paid 20.9% average for last 20 years!! Not only do the rich pay double the percentage, they pay 100 times the amount. Don't forget the top 1% pay 40% of all federal taxes


Click here: Millionaires, The Middle Class, and Taxes -- Actual Numbers - NYTimes.com

Millionaires, The Middle Class, and Taxes -- Actual Numbers - NYTimes.com

Krugman's chart also shows that that the median tax rate of those earning $30-40K is only 9.6, and the median for those earning over $1M is 23.5. That doesn't convince me that the poor are subsidizing the rich. After all, 23.5 percent of a million is a hell of a lot more than 9.6 or even 100 percent of only $40K. A guy who earns $1M and who is is taxed at 23.5 percent pays federal tax of $235,000. Thus he pays almost 6 times more in taxes than the guy making $40K earns. I can just see plaintiffs trying to convince a judge that the man who pays $3,840 in taxes ($40,000 X 9.6 percent) is subsidizing the man who contributes $235,000 or more.

Unfortunately Krugman does not explain how a few millionaires (10 percent) pay only 4.2 percent of their income in federal taxes while most other millionaires pay substantially more. However, even the guy who earns a million and pays only 4.2 percent in taxes still contributes $42,000 to the federal government.

I can understand those who argue that the wealthy should be taxed at a higher rate than they already are; I may disagree, but I at least find their position reasonable. However, it makes no sense to me to say that the middle class are subsidizing them, at least not by my definition of 'subsidize.' I would caution the OP to consider the overall effect on the economy that a higher tax rate on the wealthy would have. Some economists believe it would have a negative effect. This is a debate for another place and another time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If a rich person Mitt Romney only pays 13% & a middle class person KissMy pays 28%, the middle class is subsidizing the rich.

Average person pays 11.4% tax according to Krugman chart,(link below) Romney paid 20.9% average for last 20 years!! Not only do the rich pay double the percentage, they pay 100 times the amount. Don't forget the top 1% pay 40% of all federal taxes


Click here: Millionaires, The Middle Class, and Taxes -- Actual Numbers - NYTimes.com

Millionaires, The Middle Class, and Taxes -- Actual Numbers - NYTimes.com

Krugman's chart also shows that that the median tax rate of those earning $30-40K is only 9.6, and the median for those earning over $1M is 23.5. That doesn't convince me that the poor are subsidizing the rich. After all, 23.5 percent of a million is a hell of a lot more than 9.6 or even 100 percent of only $40K. A guy who earns $1M and who is is taxed at 23.5 percent pays federal tax of $235,000. Thus he pays almost 6 times more in taxes than the guy making $40K earns. I can just see plaintiffs trying to convince a judge that the man who pays $3,840 in taxes ($40,000 X 9.6 percent) is subsidizing the man who contributes $235,000 or more.

Unfortunately Krugman does not explain how a few millionaires (10 percent) pay only 4.2 percent of their income in federal taxes while most other millionaires pay substantially more. However, even the guy who earns a million and pays only 4.2 percent in taxes still contributes $42,000 to the federal government.

I can understand those who argue that the wealthy should be taxed at a higher rate than they already are; I may disagree, but I at least find their position reasonable. However, it makes no sense to me to say that the middle class are subsidizing them, at least not by my definition of 'subsidize.' I would caution the OP to consider the overall effect on the economy that a higher tax rate on the wealthy would have. Some economists believe it would have a negative effect. This is a debate for another place and another time.

However, it makes no sense to me

Most things that Krugman, and other liberals, say, make no sense, except to other liberals.

 

[KissMy]

Subsidies to Giant Banks Exceed $780 Billion Dollars Per YEAR

500 small banks have failed along with millions of small business because big business gets subsidies that small ones do not get.

 

[Ernie S.]

Middle Class Law Suit for being forced to subsidize the Rich with taxes.

Kiss my...... ass.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Subsidies to Giant Banks Exceed $780 Billion Dollars Per YEAR

500 small banks have failed along with millions of small business because big business gets subsidies that small ones do not get.

the government is subsidizing big banks with artificial and guaranteed “spreads”, where the banks borrow cheaper than any consumer can, and then lend the money back to the government at much higher interest rates.

LOL! I love this silly claim.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Subsidies to Giant Banks Exceed $780 Billion Dollars Per YEAR

500 small banks have failed along with millions of small business because big business gets subsidies that small ones do not get.

the government is subsidizing big banks with artificial and guaranteed “spreads”, where the banks borrow cheaper than any consumer can, and then lend the money back to the government at much higher interest rates.

LOL! I love this silly claim.

$780 billion?? Wow we should all buy shares in the big banks then!!
It makes you wonder why so many went bankrupt with $780 in subsidies!!
Thinking does not even occur to a liberal.

 

[KissMy]

Subsidies to Giant Banks Exceed $780 Billion Dollars Per YEAR

500 small banks have failed along with millions of small business because big business gets subsidies that small ones do not get.

the government is subsidizing big banks with artificial and guaranteed “spreads”, where the banks borrow cheaper than any consumer can, and then lend the money back to the government at much higher interest rates.

LOL! I love this silly claim.

$780 billion?? Wow we should all buy shares in the big banks then!!
It makes you wonder why so many went bankrupt with $780 in subsidies!!
Thinking does not even occur to a liberal.

They are getting all kinds of subsidies. The IMF, World Bank & Federal reserve says so. Only idiots like you believe banks paid us back for the bailout instead of using subsidies to hand back & claim they paid us back. We had massive inflation because of all their reckless lending. They need to stop taking & pay us back. They are betting depositors FDIC insured accounts. The 18 largest banks get a interest rate cut premium due to the implicitly "To Big To Fail" bailout subsidized by the taxpayer. This is one reason why small banks & business can't compete. Are you going to refute the facts that Federal Reserve President James B. Bullard told you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the government is subsidizing big banks with artificial and guaranteed “spreads”, where the banks borrow cheaper than any consumer can, and then lend the money back to the government at much higher interest rates.

LOL! I love this silly claim.

$780 billion?? Wow we should all buy shares in the big banks then!!
It makes you wonder why so many went bankrupt with $780 in subsidies!!
Thinking does not even occur to a liberal.

They are getting all kinds of subsidies. The IMF, World Bank & Federal reserve says so. Only idiots like you believe banks paid us back for the bailout instead of using subsidies to hand back & claim they paid us back. We had massive inflation because of all their reckless lending. They need to stop taking & pay us back. They are betting depositors FDIC insured accounts. The 18 largest banks get a interest rate cut premium due to the implicitly "To Big To Fail" bailout subsidized by the taxpayer. This is one reason why small banks & business can't compete. Are you going to refute the facts that Federal Reserve President James B. Bullard told you?

the government is subsidizing big banks with artificial and guaranteed “spreads”, where the banks borrow cheaper than any consumer can, and then lend the money back to the government at much higher interest rates.

Explain this silly claim, if you can.

 

[KissMy]

$780 billion?? Wow we should all buy shares in the big banks then!!
It makes you wonder why so many went bankrupt with $780 in subsidies!!
Thinking does not even occur to a liberal.

They are getting all kinds of subsidies. The IMF, World Bank & Federal reserve says so. Only idiots like you believe banks paid us back for the bailout instead of using subsidies to hand back & claim they paid us back. We had massive inflation because of all their reckless lending. They need to stop taking & pay us back. They are betting depositors FDIC insured accounts. The 18 largest banks get a interest rate cut premium due to the implicitly "To Big To Fail" bailout subsidized by the taxpayer. This is one reason why small banks & business can't compete. Are you going to refute the facts that Federal Reserve President James B. Bullard told you?

the government is subsidizing big banks with artificial and guaranteed “spreads”, where the banks borrow cheaper than any consumer can, and then lend the money back to the government at much higher interest rates.

Explain this silly claim, if you can.

I can't fix stupid, so keep subsidizing & licking the shoes of the rich.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They are getting all kinds of subsidies.

and where is it going?? Is it reflected in earnings?? Which stocks should I buy?? BOA has a yield of .30% (Verizon 5%) and trades at 49 times earnings!!

They need to stop taking & pay us back.

too stupid, they are barely solvent!! Why do you think so many went bankrupt?? Do you want Fanny Freddie to pay back the 450 billion??
Do you want the individuals who got all the welfare over all the decades to pay us back??