Moody's Predicts Democrat Landslide

[Dad2three]

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis



DEMS HAVE A LOT OF POWER UNDER DUBYA DID THEY?

Yeah and who forced the banks to give out these bad loans, Democrat controlled congress.

You see the low point on the right side of the map? The bar that says '07 under it? That's when Democrats started to control Congress.....

Remind us again who Barney Frank was and the role he played?

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelinesinstructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: Fannie And Freddie "Followed Rather Than Led Wall Street And Other Lenders In The Rush For Fool's Gold."

McClatchy: During Bubble Years, "Private Investment Banks -- Not Fannie And Freddie -- Dominated The Mortgage Loans That Were Packaged And Sold."

McClatchy: "Federal Housing Data Reveal That Charges" Against Fannie And Freddie "Aren't True."


Investor Barry Ritholz: Narrative That Fannie/Freddie Caused The Crisis Is "The Big Lie" Of Financial Crisis.

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.

Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.

[...]

Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses.

The previous Big Lie -- the discredited belief that free markets require no adult supervision -- is the reason people have created a new false narrative.


What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

Whatever! It wasn't Bush.

 

[Roudy]

Yeah and who forced the banks to give out these bad loans, Democrat controlled congress.

You see the low point on the right side of the map? The bar that says '07 under it? That's when Democrats started to control Congress.....

Remind us again who Barney Frank was and the role he played?

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe

Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelinesinstructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"

Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.

Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: Fannie And Freddie "Followed Rather Than Led Wall Street And Other Lenders In The Rush For Fool's Gold."

McClatchy: During Bubble Years, "Private Investment Banks -- Not Fannie And Freddie -- Dominated The Mortgage Loans That Were Packaged And Sold."

McClatchy: "Federal Housing Data Reveal That Charges" Against Fannie And Freddie "Aren't True."


Investor Barry Ritholz: Narrative That Fannie/Freddie Caused The Crisis Is "The Big Lie" Of Financial Crisis.

Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.

Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.

[...]

Congress did radically deregulate the financial sector, doing away with many of the protections that had worked for decades. Congress allowed Wall Street to self-regulate, and the Fed the turned a blind eye to bank abuses.

The previous Big Lie -- the discredited belief that free markets require no adult supervision -- is the reason people have created a new false narrative.


What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral

Whatever! It wasn't Bush.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I GUARANTEE you its gonna' be sunny all day today.

Unless things change and clouds roll in. Then all bets are off.

 

[rightwinger]

Biggest Lie Ever!

I backed my claim up with history, you got nothing.

fdr and obama upped spending
fdr and obama upped taxes
fdr and obama created a program that added to the debt
fdr and obama slowed recovery with their idiotic ideas


you stand corrected by facts

FDR and Obama fixed the worst Republican economic disasters of their era

by making it worse and last longer than it should have.

history tells us, clearly, that cutting taxes and spending brings depressions-recessions to much quicker ends.

obama has a college degree and hire people with degrees, so they should have known history

Republican alternative realities do not substitute for facts

Cutting taxes and escalating spending results in massive debt......little else

correct, that's an equal plan that leads to equal disaster.

look what the hated Harding did (hated by the people that rank the most evil man to sit the WH, fdr, as their besty); He cut taxes and spending, it resulted in the Roaring 20's.

Along with deregulation and rampant unchecked speculation, it resulted in the Great Depression

All bubbles eventually burst

 

[rightwinger]

Also,,,we have cut the shit out of everything from infrastructure to our educational system but the rich don't want to pay more taxes. Greedy bastards.

1/2 the country pays no taxes, those greedy fucks demand others pay more and ignorant buffoons like you agree.

Which slice of the pie do you want to get more money out of?

Looks like you are after the 40% who have TWO TENTHS of the wealth

 

[Roudy]

Also,,,we have cut the shit out of everything from infrastructure to our educational system but the rich don't want to pay more taxes. Greedy bastards.

1/2 the country pays no taxes, those greedy fucks demand others pay more and ignorant buffoons like you agree.

Which slice of the pie do you want to get more money out of?

Looks like you are after the 40% who have TWO TENTHS of the wealth

...who are paying most of the taxes anyhow:

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

 

[KissMy]

The Working Class is Subsidizing the top 10%

 

[Nyvin]

Also,,,we have cut the shit out of everything from infrastructure to our educational system but the rich don't want to pay more taxes. Greedy bastards.

1/2 the country pays no taxes, those greedy fucks demand others pay more and ignorant buffoons like you agree.

Which slice of the pie do you want to get more money out of?

Looks like you are after the 40% who have TWO TENTHS of the wealth

...who are paying most of the taxes anyhow:

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

Income taxes are specifically designed to tax those with more income heavier. That chart completely ignores all the other taxes paid except those that are weighed heaviest against wealthier people.

 

[Dad2three]

Also,,,we have cut the shit out of everything from infrastructure to our educational system but the rich don't want to pay more taxes. Greedy bastards.

1/2 the country pays no taxes, those greedy fucks demand others pay more and ignorant buffoons like you agree.

Which slice of the pie do you want to get more money out of?

Looks like you are after the 40% who have TWO TENTHS of the wealth

...who are paying most of the taxes anyhow:

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

The nation’s tax system is barely progressive. Those who argue that the wealthy are overtaxed focus solely on the federal personal income tax, while ignoring the other taxes that Americans pay. But, as the table to the right illustrates, the total share of taxes (federal, state, and local) that will be paid by Americans across the economic spectrum in 2014 is roughly equal to their total share of income.

Many taxes are regressive, meaning they take a larger share of income from poor and middle-income families than they do from the rich. To offset the regressive impact of payroll taxes, sales taxes and even some state and local income taxes, we need federal income tax policies that are more progressive.

Who Pays Taxes in America in 2014? | CTJReports

 

[rightwinger]

Also,,,we have cut the shit out of everything from infrastructure to our educational system but the rich don't want to pay more taxes. Greedy bastards.

1/2 the country pays no taxes, those greedy fucks demand others pay more and ignorant buffoons like you agree.

Which slice of the pie do you want to get more money out of?

Looks like you are after the 40% who have TWO TENTHS of the wealth

...who are paying most of the taxes anyhow:

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

So those who are monopolizing the wealth and income also pay more taxes on it?

You have a problem with that?

 

[Roudy]

Also,,,we have cut the shit out of everything from infrastructure to our educational system but the rich don't want to pay more taxes. Greedy bastards.

1/2 the country pays no taxes, those greedy fucks demand others pay more and ignorant buffoons like you agree.

Which slice of the pie do you want to get more money out of?

Looks like you are after the 40% who have TWO TENTHS of the wealth

...who are paying most of the taxes anyhow:

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

So those who are monopolizing the wealth and income also pay more taxes on it?

You have a problem with that?

No problem, the wealthier are indeed paying more than their fair share of taxes.

 

[Roudy]

Also,,,we have cut the shit out of everything from infrastructure to our educational system but the rich don't want to pay more taxes. Greedy bastards.

1/2 the country pays no taxes, those greedy fucks demand others pay more and ignorant buffoons like you agree.

Which slice of the pie do you want to get more money out of?

Looks like you are after the 40% who have TWO TENTHS of the wealth

...who are paying most of the taxes anyhow:

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

The nation’s tax system is barely progressive. Those who argue that the wealthy are overtaxed focus solely on the federal personal income tax, while ignoring the other taxes that Americans pay. But, as the table to the right illustrates, the total share of taxes (federal, state, and local) that will be paid by Americans across the economic spectrum in 2014 is roughly equal to their total share of income.

Many taxes are regressive, meaning they take a larger share of income from poor and middle-income families than they do from the rich. To offset the regressive impact of payroll taxes, sales taxes and even some state and local income taxes, we need federal income tax policies that are more progressive.

Who Pays Taxes in America in 2014? | CTJReports

More leftist bull-Shiite.

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

The Tax Foundation recently released its annual analysis of federal income taxes, based on data from the Internal Revenue Service. The report, authored by Kyle Pomerleau and Andrew Lundeen, finds that in 2012, the top five percent of income earners paid a majority (59 percent) of federal income taxes and earned 37 percent of total adjusted gross income. The effective tax rate for this group was 21 percent. These findings are echoed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

These data make it possible to fact check the claim that in 2012, the rich skimped on their tax responsibilities at everyone else’s expense.

It seems so long ago, but the central point of contention in the 2012 presidential race was over the question of whether the rich pay their fair share of taxes. As President Obama argued, “Those who have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that made our success possible. We shouldn’t get a better deal than ordinary families...”

The top one percent of income earners, who paid 38 percent of federal income taxes, faced an effective tax rate of 23 percent. This was nearly seven times higher than the effective rate of 3 percent paid by the bottom half of income earners. The bottom half of income earners paid only 3 percent of federal income taxes and earned 11 percent of total adjusted gross income.

Do the rich really not pay their fair share?

As the graphic below shows, the top half of income earners paid 97 percent of all federal income taxes in 2012.

The tax rates paid by those with higher incomes do not result in increased government benefits for this group. Data from the CBO report show that those in the highest quintile of earners received just 19 cents of federal benefits for every dollar they paid in federal taxes. Those in the lowest quintile received $18.20 in federal benefits for every dollar they paid in federal taxes. The rich are subsidizing middle-income as well as low-income Americans—the middle quintile of earners received $2.23 in benefits for each dollar they paid.

When state and local taxes and benefits are taken into account, the difference is less dramatic—but the same trend holds. Other Tax Foundation data compiled by Gerald Prante and Scott Hodge show that families in the upper quintile of income earners received 29 cents back through government spending for every dollar they paid in federal, state, and local taxes. Those in the bottom quintile received $5.28 in government spending for each tax dollar they pay. Those in the top one percent received just 6 cents.

When the progressive income tax was implemented 101 years ago, the initial rates were laughably low by today's standards. In 1913, after exemptions, Uncle Sam levied a 1 percent tax on incomes over $20,000 (around $475,000 today). The marginal rate increased steadily to what seemed then an intolerable 7 percent for incomes over $500,000 (about $12 million today).

Over 99 percent of the population was not directly affected by the income tax when it first began. Similar to most government actions, the scale and scope of the income tax quickly escalated.

Over the last 101 years, the government's ability to collect its citizens' incomes has permeated America's political fabric. With that, the government’s willingness to expand into other aspects of citizens' lives increased as well.

Today, to help the government fulfill its new roles, federal tax collections are approaching 20 percent of GDP. Before the income tax started, that number was below three percent.

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

 

[Roudy]

The Working Class is Subsidizing the top 10%

Irrelevant chart:

STEPHEN MOORE: Do the rich pay their fair share of taxes? - Washington Times

The idea that the rich aren’t paying any taxes is based on misinformation fed to voters. They have been told over and over by politicians and the media that the wealthiest among us — Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Tom Brady, and Taylor Swift — are paying very little income tax compared to the rest of us. We are told by no less than Mr. Obama that these millionaires and billionaires have all the money, but they don’t bear much if any of the burden to pay for the schools, and the roads, and the police, and the welfare benefits, and the rest of the tasks of government.

So time for a reality test. Mr. Obama wants to raise the income tax payments from the top one percent to level the playing field and enhance tax “fairness.” Here are the latest statistics from the IRS for 2011. The top one percent earned 19 percent of the total income and paid 35 percent of the federal income tax. So one of 100 shouldered 35 percent of the entire burden. And the average of the five most recently reported years (2007-2011) is closer to 40 percent. Several years ago Al Sharpton, now of MSNBC said the “top one percent in this country pays very much less than 10 percent” of the income tax. Most Americans no doubt believe the same thing.

The top 10 percent pay two-thirds of the income tax. And the bottom 50 percent — all Americans with an income below the median — pay just 3 percent of the income tax. The federal income tax, according to a recent study by the Tax Foundation, is one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. Scott Hodge, president of Tax Foundation, says: “Almost no other industrialized nation depends on the rich to pay the bills more than the United States.”

 

[Dad2three]

The Working Class is Subsidizing the top 10%

Irrelevant chart:

STEPHEN MOORE: Do the rich pay their fair share of taxes? - Washington Times

The idea that the rich aren’t paying any taxes is based on misinformation fed to voters. They have been told over and over by politicians and the media that the wealthiest among us — Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Tom Brady, and Taylor Swift — are paying very little income tax compared to the rest of us. We are told by no less than Mr. Obama that these millionaires and billionaires have all the money, but they don’t bear much if any of the burden to pay for the schools, and the roads, and the police, and the welfare benefits, and the rest of the tasks of government.

So time for a reality test. Mr. Obama wants to raise the income tax payments from the top one percent to level the playing field and enhance tax “fairness.” Here are the latest statistics from the IRS for 2011. The top one percent earned 19 percent of the total income and paid 35 percent of the federal income tax. So one of 100 shouldered 35 percent of the entire burden. And the average of the five most recently reported years (2007-2011) is closer to 40 percent. Several years ago Al Sharpton, now of MSNBC said the “top one percent in this country pays very much less than 10 percent” of the income tax. Most Americans no doubt believe the same thing.

The top 10 percent pay two-thirds of the income tax. And the bottom 50 percent — all Americans with an income below the median — pay just 3 percent of the income tax. The federal income tax, according to a recent study by the Tax Foundation, is one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. Scott Hodge, president of Tax Foundation, says: “Almost no other industrialized nation depends on the rich to pay the bills more than the United States.”

Moore? The liar who said you get more tax revenues when you cut tax rates? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Also,,,we have cut the shit out of everything from infrastructure to our educational system but the rich don't want to pay more taxes. Greedy bastards.

1/2 the country pays no taxes, those greedy fucks demand others pay more and ignorant buffoons like you agree.

Which slice of the pie do you want to get more money out of?

Looks like you are after the 40% who have TWO TENTHS of the wealth

...who are paying most of the taxes anyhow:

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

The nation’s tax system is barely progressive. Those who argue that the wealthy are overtaxed focus solely on the federal personal income tax, while ignoring the other taxes that Americans pay. But, as the table to the right illustrates, the total share of taxes (federal, state, and local) that will be paid by Americans across the economic spectrum in 2014 is roughly equal to their total share of income.

Many taxes are regressive, meaning they take a larger share of income from poor and middle-income families than they do from the rich. To offset the regressive impact of payroll taxes, sales taxes and even some state and local income taxes, we need federal income tax policies that are more progressive.

Who Pays Taxes in America in 2014? | CTJReports

More leftist bull-Shiite.

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

The Tax Foundation recently released its annual analysis of federal income taxes, based on data from the Internal Revenue Service. The report, authored by Kyle Pomerleau and Andrew Lundeen, finds that in 2012, the top five percent of income earners paid a majority (59 percent) of federal income taxes and earned 37 percent of total adjusted gross income. The effective tax rate for this group was 21 percent. These findings are echoed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

These data make it possible to fact check the claim that in 2012, the rich skimped on their tax responsibilities at everyone else’s expense.

It seems so long ago, but the central point of contention in the 2012 presidential race was over the question of whether the rich pay their fair share of taxes. As President Obama argued, “Those who have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that made our success possible. We shouldn’t get a better deal than ordinary families...”

The top one percent of income earners, who paid 38 percent of federal income taxes, faced an effective tax rate of 23 percent. This was nearly seven times higher than the effective rate of 3 percent paid by the bottom half of income earners. The bottom half of income earners paid only 3 percent of federal income taxes and earned 11 percent of total adjusted gross income.

Do the rich really not pay their fair share?

As the graphic below shows, the top half of income earners paid 97 percent of all federal income taxes in 2012.

The tax rates paid by those with higher incomes do not result in increased government benefits for this group. Data from the CBO report show that those in the highest quintile of earners received just 19 cents of federal benefits for every dollar they paid in federal taxes. Those in the lowest quintile received $18.20 in federal benefits for every dollar they paid in federal taxes. The rich are subsidizing middle-income as well as low-income Americans—the middle quintile of earners received $2.23 in benefits for each dollar they paid.

When state and local taxes and benefits are taken into account, the difference is less dramatic—but the same trend holds. Other Tax Foundation data compiled by Gerald Prante and Scott Hodge show that families in the upper quintile of income earners received 29 cents back through government spending for every dollar they paid in federal, state, and local taxes. Those in the bottom quintile received $5.28 in government spending for each tax dollar they pay. Those in the top one percent received just 6 cents.

When the progressive income tax was implemented 101 years ago, the initial rates were laughably low by today's standards. In 1913, after exemptions, Uncle Sam levied a 1 percent tax on incomes over $20,000 (around $475,000 today). The marginal rate increased steadily to what seemed then an intolerable 7 percent for incomes over $500,000 (about $12 million today).

Over 99 percent of the population was not directly affected by the income tax when it first began. Similar to most government actions, the scale and scope of the income tax quickly escalated.

Over the last 101 years, the government's ability to collect its citizens' incomes has permeated America's political fabric. With that, the government’s willingness to expand into other aspects of citizens' lives increased as well.

Today, to help the government fulfill its new roles, federal tax collections are approaching 20 percent of GDP. Before the income tax started, that number was below three percent.

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

 

[rightwinger]

Also,,,we have cut the shit out of everything from infrastructure to our educational system but the rich don't want to pay more taxes. Greedy bastards.

1/2 the country pays no taxes, those greedy fucks demand others pay more and ignorant buffoons like you agree.

Which slice of the pie do you want to get more money out of?

Looks like you are after the 40% who have TWO TENTHS of the wealth

...who are paying most of the taxes anyhow:

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

So those who are monopolizing the wealth and income also pay more taxes on it?

You have a problem with that?

No problem, the wealthier are indeed paying more than their fair share of taxes.

So you demand more out of those who have the least to give

 

[KissMy]

The Working Class is Subsidizing the top 10%

Irrelevant chart:

STEPHEN MOORE: Do the rich pay their fair share of taxes? - Washington Times

The idea that the rich aren’t paying any taxes is based on misinformation fed to voters. They have been told over and over by politicians and the media that the wealthiest among us — Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Tom Brady, and Taylor Swift — are paying very little income tax compared to the rest of us. We are told by no less than Mr. Obama that these millionaires and billionaires have all the money, but they don’t bear much if any of the burden to pay for the schools, and the roads, and the police, and the welfare benefits, and the rest of the tasks of government.

So time for a reality test. Mr. Obama wants to raise the income tax payments from the top one percent to level the playing field and enhance tax “fairness.” Here are the latest statistics from the IRS for 2011. The top one percent earned 19 percent of the total income and paid 35 percent of the federal income tax. So one of 100 shouldered 35 percent of the entire burden. And the average of the five most recently reported years (2007-2011) is closer to 40 percent. Several years ago Al Sharpton, now of MSNBC said the “top one percent in this country pays very much less than 10 percent” of the income tax. Most Americans no doubt believe the same thing.

The top 10 percent pay two-thirds of the income tax. And the bottom 50 percent — all Americans with an income below the median — pay just 3 percent of the income tax. The federal income tax, according to a recent study by the Tax Foundation, is one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. Scott Hodge, president of Tax Foundation, says: “Almost no other industrialized nation depends on the rich to pay the bills more than the United States.”

All 100% Bullshit. You don't have a clue what effective tax rate or a subsidy is! All your copying & pasting political hacks proves your ignorance!

 

[Roudy]

1/2 the country pays no taxes, those greedy fucks demand others pay more and ignorant buffoons like you agree.

Which slice of the pie do you want to get more money out of?

Looks like you are after the 40% who have TWO TENTHS of the wealth

...who are paying most of the taxes anyhow:

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

So those who are monopolizing the wealth and income also pay more taxes on it?

You have a problem with that?

No problem, the wealthier are indeed paying more than their fair share of taxes.

So you demand more out of those who have the least to give

Is the solution to take more and more? The rich are usually driven, successful, innovative, educated people who worked hard to get there. And they create future generations of educated, innovative successful people. With exception of a few who are born with silver spoons up their anuses. Instead of celebrating and emulating success, the left under Obama has become a party that wants to criminalize success or wealth. They will not be happy until they tax 98% of anything people earn over a certain number they feel is "acceptable" ie $50,000. Marxism didn't work.

 

[Roudy]

The Working Class is Subsidizing the top 10%

Irrelevant chart:

STEPHEN MOORE: Do the rich pay their fair share of taxes? - Washington Times

The idea that the rich aren’t paying any taxes is based on misinformation fed to voters. They have been told over and over by politicians and the media that the wealthiest among us — Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Tom Brady, and Taylor Swift — are paying very little income tax compared to the rest of us. We are told by no less than Mr. Obama that these millionaires and billionaires have all the money, but they don’t bear much if any of the burden to pay for the schools, and the roads, and the police, and the welfare benefits, and the rest of the tasks of government.

So time for a reality test. Mr. Obama wants to raise the income tax payments from the top one percent to level the playing field and enhance tax “fairness.” Here are the latest statistics from the IRS for 2011. The top one percent earned 19 percent of the total income and paid 35 percent of the federal income tax. So one of 100 shouldered 35 percent of the entire burden. And the average of the five most recently reported years (2007-2011) is closer to 40 percent. Several years ago Al Sharpton, now of MSNBC said the “top one percent in this country pays very much less than 10 percent” of the income tax. Most Americans no doubt believe the same thing.

The top 10 percent pay two-thirds of the income tax. And the bottom 50 percent — all Americans with an income below the median — pay just 3 percent of the income tax. The federal income tax, according to a recent study by the Tax Foundation, is one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. Scott Hodge, president of Tax Foundation, says: “Almost no other industrialized nation depends on the rich to pay the bills more than the United States.”

All 100% Bullshit. You don't have a clue what effective tax rate or a subsidy is! All your copying & pasting political hacks proves your ignorance!

The rich aren't getting subsidized. That would be the record nunber on govt assistance programs that Obama has created that are being subsidized. As your income goes up so does your tax rate that is a fact. Remember how Obama promised "if you're making 250,000 or less your taxes won't go up"? Let's throw that promise in the same trash bin where his "you can keep your doctor" went.

 

[Dad2three]

Which slice of the pie do you want to get more money out of?

Looks like you are after the 40% who have TWO TENTHS of the wealth

...who are paying most of the taxes anyhow:

The Rich Pay More than Their Fair Share of Taxes | Economics21

Despite the data, accusations that the rich are not paying their fair share continue. This rhetoric is based more on perception than reality, or on a mistaken belief that the government needs more funds to become further entrenched in Americans’ lives. While this rhetoric may work as a populist rallying cry, the data show that a central tenet of the political left’s platform is simply incorrect.

So those who are monopolizing the wealth and income also pay more taxes on it?

You have a problem with that?

No problem, the wealthier are indeed paying more than their fair share of taxes.

So you demand more out of those who have the least to give

Is the solution to take more and more? The rich are usually driven, successful, innovative, educated people who worked hard to get there. And they create future generations of educated, innovative successful people. With exception of a few who are born with silver spoons up their anuses. Instead of celebrating and emulating success, the left under Obama has become a party that wants to criminalize success or wealth. They will not be happy until they tax 98% of anything people earn over a certain number they feel is "acceptable" ie $50,000. Marxism didn't work.

You’ll also notice that since marginal tax rates started to plummet during the Reagan years, income inequality has skyrocketed.

Even more striking, during those same 33 years since Reagan took office and started cutting taxes on the rich, income levels for the top 1 percent have ballooned while income levels for everyone else have stayed pretty much flat.

Coincidence? I think not.

Creating a middle class is always a choice, and by embracing Reaganomics and cutting taxes on the rich, we decided back in 1980 not to have a middle class within a generation or two. George H.W. Bush saw this, and correctly called it “Voodoo Economics.” And we’re still in the era of Reaganomics – as President Obama recently pointed out, Reagan was a successful revolutionary.


http://www.salon.com/2014/04/19/reaganomics_killed_americas_middle_class_partner/

Charts: Income growth has stalled for most Americans

A BUNCH OF HUCKSTERS FOR PLUTOCRATS IS ALL THE RIGHT WING IS!!