what if the 1 percent says goodbye. where would money come from ??

[FA_Q2]

... The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent). ...

Since when? In 2018 the upper 1% payed 13.3% and the bottom 90% payed 61%.

source: How Much Income Puts You in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?

On the other side the top 1% own $35.5T and the bottom 90% own $44.4T. (in 2Q 2019)

source: Richest 1% of Americans Close to Surpassing Wealth of Middle Class

So the bottom 90% pay 4.6 times more income tax - although they have only 1.25 times more assets.

Did you even read your own link. It does not state anywhere that the top 1% payed 13% tax.
"The bottom 90% earned 69.8% of all earnings in 1979 but only 61% in 2018. In contrast the top 1% increased its share of earnings from 7.3% in 1979 to 13.3% in 2018, a near-doubling."

We do not have a flat tax, citing flat earning has very little connection with actual paid taxes.

Who Pays Taxes in America in 2018?

America’s tax system overall is marginally progressive. The share of all taxes paid by the richest Americans slightly exceeds their share of the nation’s income. Conversely, the share of all taxes paid by the poorest Americans is slightly smaller than the share of the nation’s income going to...

itep.org

The top 1% does pay a far larger share than the rest of income brackets, that really should be blatantly obvious. That does not necessarily mean it is enough or the correct amount but pretending they do not is not helpful in any shape or form.

 

[Mr Natural]

And in the greatest economy of all time, people have to line up in their SUVs and wait for food handouts because they’re out of work for few weeks.

 

[22lcidw]

And in the greatest economy of all time, people have to line up in their SUVs and wait for food handouts because they’re out of work for few weeks.

It did not have to be that way.

 

[Mr Natural]

And in the greatest economy of all time, people have to line up in their SUVs and wait for food handouts because they’re out of work for few weeks.

It did not have to be that way.

No, It didn’t. But jobs these days don’t pay enough to allow people to sock away six months of living expenses.

 

[WEATHER53]

Successful business are out to get liberals. They need to be busted down to broke and miserable like liberals
Meanwhile, if you disdain our monetary support while despising us as individuals then no sweat off our backs to stop funding you.

 

[Staidhup]

Maybe its time to reevaluate ones support for the tax and spend party that claims you can spend your way into prosperity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent). ...

Since when? In 2018 the upper 1% payed 13.3% and the bottom 90% payed 61%.

source: How Much Income Puts You in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?

On the other side the top 1% own $35.5T and the bottom 90% own $44.4T. (in 2Q 2019)

source: Richest 1% of Americans Close to Surpassing Wealth of Middle Class

So the bottom 90% pay 4.6 times more income tax - although they have only 1.25 times more assets.

In 2018 the upper 1% payed 13.3% and the bottom 90% payed 61%.

You're confused. Better recheck your source.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 357948 The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.9 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.7 percent).Nov 13, 2018

now what, no cops no emts no firefighters... now what ? atlas shrugged ? i guess the next thing would be to force some people to be cops, and.....

Fun with numbers again, eh? What percentages of real income is earned every year by those shares, before deductions? According to the WSJ's numbers for last year, the average percentage paid was around 17% of the Top 1%, after deductions for all kinds of stuff the lower income brackets will never qualify for, and of course about the same rate for capital gains, also loaded up with all kinds of 'special' deductions real wage earners will never see, and we haven't even touched on 'deferred earnings' from overseas labor racketeering and money laundering and tax shelters, also not an option for your domestic wage earners.

IF one bracket is raking in over 80% of the income every year, it should probably pay more than 37% of income taxes. Unearned income should be taxed at higher rates as well. Despite the silly propagand, those who work the hardest are not even remotely the highest paid.

All those low wages are what is actually paying all the taxes in all brackets and income levels. Warren Buffet even admits that.

Personally I'm opposed to treating wages as 'income', since it is not traditionally income in a strict economic definition, it's barter and not a gain for the individual who receives wages. There or other ways to finance govt. without stealing from workers, but the illegal Civil War the criminal Lincoln started to get massive welfare programs for the North has pretty much obliterated any discussion or even notice of other methods, since corporations have taken over the country's tax system since 1865.

IF one bracket is raking in over 80% of the income every year, it should probably pay more than 37% of income taxes.

Which bracket do you feel is raking in over 80% of the income every year?

 

[zaangalewa]

... The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent). ...

Since when? In 2018 the upper 1% payed 13.3% and the bottom 90% payed 61%.

source: How Much Income Puts You in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?

On the other side the top 1% own $35.5T and the bottom 90% own $44.4T. (in 2Q 2019)

source: Richest 1% of Americans Close to Surpassing Wealth of Middle Class

So the bottom 90% pay 4.6 times more income tax - although they have only 1.25 times more assets.

Did you even read your own link. It does not state anywhere that the top 1% payed 13% tax.
"The bottom 90% earned 69.8% of all earnings in 1979 but only 61% in 2018. In contrast the top 1% increased its share of earnings from 7.3% in 1979 to 13.3% in 2018, a near-doubling."

We do not have a flat tax, citing flat earning has very little connection with actual paid taxes.

Who Pays Taxes in America in 2018?

America’s tax system overall is marginally progressive. The share of all taxes paid by the richest Americans slightly exceeds their share of the nation’s income. Conversely, the share of all taxes paid by the poorest Americans is slightly smaller than the share of the nation’s income going to...

itep.org

The top 1% does pay a far larger share than the rest of income brackets,

Not really if you take your own data here serios. I guess if the Top 1% leave the USA this would mean nothing.

that really should be blatantly obvious. That does not necessarily mean it is enough or the correct amount but pretending they do not is not helpful in any shape or form.

 

[FA_Q2]

... The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent). ...

Since when? In 2018 the upper 1% payed 13.3% and the bottom 90% payed 61%.

source: How Much Income Puts You in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?

On the other side the top 1% own $35.5T and the bottom 90% own $44.4T. (in 2Q 2019)

source: Richest 1% of Americans Close to Surpassing Wealth of Middle Class

So the bottom 90% pay 4.6 times more income tax - although they have only 1.25 times more assets.

Did you even read your own link. It does not state anywhere that the top 1% payed 13% tax.
"The bottom 90% earned 69.8% of all earnings in 1979 but only 61% in 2018. In contrast the top 1% increased its share of earnings from 7.3% in 1979 to 13.3% in 2018, a near-doubling."

We do not have a flat tax, citing flat earning has very little connection with actual paid taxes.

Who Pays Taxes in America in 2018?

America’s tax system overall is marginally progressive. The share of all taxes paid by the richest Americans slightly exceeds their share of the nation’s income. Conversely, the share of all taxes paid by the poorest Americans is slightly smaller than the share of the nation’s income going to...

itep.org

The top 1% does pay a far larger share than the rest of income brackets,

Not really if you take your own data here serios. I guess if the Top 1% leave the USA this would mean nothing.

that really should be blatantly obvious. That does not necessarily mean it is enough or the correct amount but pretending they do not is not helpful in any shape or form.

....

You think the overall tax income falling 23% and the overall wealth in the nation dropping like a rock means nothing?

I notice you ignore the fact that what you posted was outright false as well...

 

[zaangalewa]

... The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent). ...

Since when? In 2018 the upper 1% payed 13.3% and the bottom 90% payed 61%.

source: How Much Income Puts You in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?

On the other side the top 1% own $35.5T and the bottom 90% own $44.4T. (in 2Q 2019)

source: Richest 1% of Americans Close to Surpassing Wealth of Middle Class

So the bottom 90% pay 4.6 times more income tax - although they have only 1.25 times more assets.

Did you even read your own link. It does not state anywhere that the top 1% payed 13% tax.
"The bottom 90% earned 69.8% of all earnings in 1979 but only 61% in 2018. In contrast the top 1% increased its share of earnings from 7.3% in 1979 to 13.3% in 2018, a near-doubling."

We do not have a flat tax, citing flat earning has very little connection with actual paid taxes.

Who Pays Taxes in America in 2018?

America’s tax system overall is marginally progressive. The share of all taxes paid by the richest Americans slightly exceeds their share of the nation’s income. Conversely, the share of all taxes paid by the poorest Americans is slightly smaller than the share of the nation’s income going to...

itep.org

The top 1% does pay a far larger share than the rest of income brackets,

Not really if you take your own data here serios. I guess if the Top 1% leave the USA this would mean nothing.

that really should be blatantly obvious. That does not necessarily mean it is enough or the correct amount but pretending they do not is not helpful in any shape or form.

....

You think the overall tax income falling 23% and the overall wealth in the nation dropping like a rock means nothing?

Exactly. The problem of the top 1% is their asset. Karl Marx said once "property is theft" - and this is not untrue: If someone owns a sky-scraper for example - Was he able to build this sky-scraper with the work of his own hands during his life? It's by the way unimportant what I say to you about the USA - I am a German and not an US-American. But because of this what I call "socialism of the superrich" I thought once about what will happen in Germany, if we will throw out all billionaires. I guess every scenario is possible in such a case - but my tendence is to say life will be better without the greed of the superrich people. No one should be burdened with the responsibility to have to own billions and to have to have no chance to become poor again - except in a titanic catastrophe for many, many other people.

I notice you ignore the fact that what you posted was outright false as well...

Perhaps I made a little mistake - but this is not important. Take cars for example. Cars are today twice as expensive (inflation-adjusted) as they were 20-30 years ago in Germany. Housing costs grew from 10-15% in the 1960ies (when we had a lack of living space) to meanwhile 33%-50% and more (although we have in theory more than enough living space). ... In theory in big cities we have a situation that only rich people are able to live there - but not people who have system relevant jobs, because system relevant jobs are often payed very bad. Or with other words: More and more people will have to live in cities like working slaves, while others will have all their life long only an everlasting sunday. ... So why not to reduce human beings from absolutistic money-gods, oligarchs or superrich people to normal vulnerable human-beings again? ... What could be a better way? ...

 

[Care4all]

How would the 1% make any of their 1% without the laborers/consumers? They can't survive without us...

I think you are looking at this wrongly.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

... The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent). ...

Since when? In 2018 the upper 1% payed 13.3% and the bottom 90% payed 61%.

source: How Much Income Puts You in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?

On the other side the top 1% own $35.5T and the bottom 90% own $44.4T. (in 2Q 2019)

source: Richest 1% of Americans Close to Surpassing Wealth of Middle Class

So the bottom 90% pay 4.6 times more income tax - although they have only 1.25 times more assets.

Did you even read your own link. It does not state anywhere that the top 1% payed 13% tax.
"The bottom 90% earned 69.8% of all earnings in 1979 but only 61% in 2018. In contrast the top 1% increased its share of earnings from 7.3% in 1979 to 13.3% in 2018, a near-doubling."

We do not have a flat tax, citing flat earning has very little connection with actual paid taxes.

Who Pays Taxes in America in 2018?

America’s tax system overall is marginally progressive. The share of all taxes paid by the richest Americans slightly exceeds their share of the nation’s income. Conversely, the share of all taxes paid by the poorest Americans is slightly smaller than the share of the nation’s income going to...

itep.org

The top 1% does pay a far larger share than the rest of income brackets,

Not really if you take your own data here serios. I guess if the Top 1% leave the USA this would mean nothing.

that really should be blatantly obvious. That does not necessarily mean it is enough or the correct amount but pretending they do not is not helpful in any shape or form.

....

You think the overall tax income falling 23% and the overall wealth in the nation dropping like a rock means nothing?

Exactly. The problem of the top 1% is their asset. Karl Marx said once "property is theft" - and this is not untrue: If someone owns a sky-scraper for example - Was he able to build this sky-scraper with the work of his own hands during his life? It's by the way unimportant what I say to you about the USA - I am a German and not an US-American. But because of this what I call "socialism of the superrich" I thought once about what will happen in Germany, if we will throw out all billionaires. I guess every scenario is possible in such a case - but my tendence is to say life will be better without the greed of the superrich people. No one should be burdened with the responsibility to have to own billions and to have to have no chance to become poor again - except in a titanic catastrophe for many, many other people.

I notice you ignore the fact that what you posted was outright false as well...

Perhaps I made a little mistake - but this is not important. Take cars for example. Cars are today twice as expensive (inflation-adjusted) as they were 20-30 years ago in Germany. Housing costs grew from 10-15% in the 1960ies (when we had a lack of living space) to meanwhile 33%-50% and more (although we have in theory more than enough living space). ... In theory in big cities we have a situation that only rich people are able to live there - but not people who have system relevant jobs, because system relevant jobs are often payed very bad. Or with other words: More and more people will have to live in cities like working slaves, while others will have all their life long only an everlasting sunday. ... So why not to reduce human beings from absolutistic money-gods, oligarchs or superrich people to normal vulnerable human-beings again? ... What could be a better way? ...

Cars are today twice as expensive (inflation-adjusted) as they were 20-30 years ago in Germany.

You should buy a Trabant.

 

[Mr Natural]

How would the 1% make any of their 1% without the laborers/consumers? They can't survive without us...

I think you are looking at this wrongly.

The right hand washes the left hand and both hands wash the face.

Aka, a symbiotic relationship.

 

[zaangalewa]

... The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent). ...

Since when? In 2018 the upper 1% payed 13.3% and the bottom 90% payed 61%.

source: How Much Income Puts You in the Top 1%, 5%, 10%?

On the other side the top 1% own $35.5T and the bottom 90% own $44.4T. (in 2Q 2019)

source: Richest 1% of Americans Close to Surpassing Wealth of Middle Class

So the bottom 90% pay 4.6 times more income tax - although they have only 1.25 times more assets.

Did you even read your own link. It does not state anywhere that the top 1% payed 13% tax.
"The bottom 90% earned 69.8% of all earnings in 1979 but only 61% in 2018. In contrast the top 1% increased its share of earnings from 7.3% in 1979 to 13.3% in 2018, a near-doubling."

We do not have a flat tax, citing flat earning has very little connection with actual paid taxes.

Who Pays Taxes in America in 2018?

America’s tax system overall is marginally progressive. The share of all taxes paid by the richest Americans slightly exceeds their share of the nation’s income. Conversely, the share of all taxes paid by the poorest Americans is slightly smaller than the share of the nation’s income going to...

itep.org

The top 1% does pay a far larger share than the rest of income brackets,

Not really if you take your own data here serios. I guess if the Top 1% leave the USA this would mean nothing.

that really should be blatantly obvious. That does not necessarily mean it is enough or the correct amount but pretending they do not is not helpful in any shape or form.

....

You think the overall tax income falling 23% and the overall wealth in the nation dropping like a rock means nothing?

Exactly. The problem of the top 1% is their asset. Karl Marx said once "property is theft" - and this is not untrue: If someone owns a sky-scraper for example - Was he able to build this sky-scraper with the work of his own hands during his life? It's by the way unimportant what I say to you about the USA - I am a German and not an US-American. But because of this what I call "socialism of the superrich" I thought once about what will happen in Germany, if we will throw out all billionaires. I guess every scenario is possible in such a case - but my tendence is to say life will be better without the greed of the superrich people. No one should be burdened with the responsibility to have to own billions and to have to have no chance to become poor again - except in a titanic catastrophe for many, many other people.

I notice you ignore the fact that what you posted was outright false as well...

Perhaps I made a little mistake - but this is not important. Take cars for example. Cars are today twice as expensive (inflation-adjusted) as they were 20-30 years ago in Germany. Housing costs grew from 10-15% in the 1960ies (when we had a lack of living space) to meanwhile 33%-50% and more (although we have in theory more than enough living space). ... In theory in big cities we have a situation that only rich people are able to live there - but not people who have system relevant jobs, because system relevant jobs are often payed very bad. Or with other words: More and more people will have to live in cities like working slaves, while others will have all their life long only an everlasting sunday. ... So why not to reduce human beings from absolutistic money-gods, oligarchs or superrich people to normal vulnerable human-beings again? ... What could be a better way? ...

Cars are today twice as expensive (inflation-adjusted) as they were 20-30 years ago in Germany.

You should buy a Trabant.

Lousy answer. We invented "the car" and German cars are still the best cars of the world. And the Trabbi was an unbelievable expensive car - for the Germans, who had to live in the former GDR. What the commies once made expensive makes now the "socialism for the superrich" - how I call this what happens more and more. If you move to NY - do you expect from NY to get a house and a car? But what expects "Mr. Amazon" - and lots of other superrich idiots - from the taxpayer to get for free, because they are much more than only damned rich? What means a phrase like "property means also to overtake social responsibility" today any longer? Nothing? Less than nothing? ...

Oh by the way. Donald Trump doesn't like to see any longer any Mercedes Benz in the 5th avenue. Shall we inform our chancellor to open an influencer channel and to tell there everyone worldwide what she thinks about US-American products and investmens? One of your "products" is for sure totally defect meanwhile - the US-American reputation and administration. Main reason: Sand ... ah sorry 'Trump' ... in the drive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lousy answer.

To a lousy claim.

 

[zaangalewa]

Lousy answer.

To a lousy claim.

Says an asshole.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lousy answer.

To a lousy claim.

Says an asshole.

But at least you're not very good at economics.

 

[Quasar44]

View attachment 357948 The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.9 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.7 percent).Nov 13, 2018

now what, no cops no emts no firefighters... now what ? atlas shrugged ? i guess the next thing would be to force some people to be cops, and.....

Taxes would double on the top 20 percent

 

[Wyatt earp]

The money would come from the govt. where it originated for the 1%...

The sad part is you actually believe this.

It's true. Corporate welfare is the best kind. For instance, Walmart sales are up 600% and their still receiving $7.8M in subsidies. I'm earning just over $100M from government contracts. Don't let anyone fool you, without government there wouldn't be business and the wealthy people made wealthy from business.

How did the government start Walmart? And you’re surprised during stay at home orders Walmart didn’t do better with their pick up program?

Government doesn't start businesses, but it provides the platform on which they're built, and the government picks winners and losers by their tax policies.

without government there wouldn't be business

And people would no longer need wood for a shelter.

People would no longer need food and water.

People would go around NAKED......no more cloths......

Without GOVERNMENT.......WHAT WOULD WE DO.........

Bow to YOUR GOD............GOVERNMENT..........

Business and commerce existed before the modern concepts of “business”.

People have been exchanging goods and services since the best hunter in the village offered extra meat to the best moccasin maker in village to make his shoes.

So your problem should be with government. I think that should be pretty obvious. How do you think an even larger more controlling government is going to fix the problem you have already attributed to them?

If you want to live in a hunter gatherer economy I’d like to know what you think you would be bringing to the market. What would you be hunting or gathering? What exactly would you be bringing to the trade table?

My problem is with corporations, and with the very skewed rates of wages as a percentage of costs. Over the past 40 years, companies have become more and more profitable, mostly at the expense of the workers. Companies have absorbed real increases in the costs of real estate, fixtures, raw materials, transportation, insurance and communications, over the past 40 years. They've increased executive compensation by 1000%.

During that same time frame, wages for front line workers have flatelined. Workers in the retail sector, and other service sectors, have lost income. Walmart's predatory employment practices drove wages for the whole retail sector DOWN. People who have had vast segments of their job market off-shored, have seen wages drop for the surviving manufacturing jobs because there's so much competition for the few jobs that are left.

For example: McDonalds - and really this applies to ANY franchise operation. Franchises are the video games of the business industry. Everyone wants to be the next big franchise - the next Wendy's or McDonalds. Just like every video game writer wants to create the next Call of Duty. A successful franchise is a license to print money.

But franchise stores exist to funnel cash to the Head Office. Everyone knows that McDonald's Store Owners pay $2.5 million for the store, and 4% of sales to Head Office as a Franchise Fee. And that the store owners are barely making money. That's why McDonald's can't raise wages for kids flipping burgers. But McDonald's corporate made $6 billion NET profit.

In addition to your 4% "franchise fee", there's also an "advertizing fee" which is also 4%. For your restaurant supplies - everything from your hamburger buns, to your napkins is branded and sold to you by corporate. As a store owner, you have no right to take your logos, menus, and place ,mats to your local printer and get a better price. Everything you buy for your store, comes from McDonald's Head Office, at whatever price they choose to charge you. If Head Office decides your store is "outdated", you can choose from their catalogue of current, trendy fixtures to spruce the place up. Again, you can't got to your local restaurant supplier for newer stuff.

The whole franchise set up is designed to make money for corporate, and to keep the store owner from getting rich. You can set up your own fast food joint for 1/10 the amount McDonald's will charge you, but you'll have to know how to run a restaurant, set a menu, source the food, buy the fixtures. No one will hand you the key to a business and send you to Hamburger University to learn how to run it, or hold your hand until you get the knack.

I have worked for big chartered bank with branches worldwide. They're top heavy, slow, and not terribly innovative. When I switched from banking to law, I've started working for sole praticioners and ended my career in a large, multinational firm on Bay Street. Smaller is nimbler, adaptable, and quick. Bigger has more resources. If I needed training on a program, I called IT. I had my own secretary, and support staff to send my faxes, make my photocopies, and send out my couriers.

View attachment 357948 The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (37.3 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (30.5 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 26.9 percent individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.7 percent).Nov 13, 2018

now what, no cops no emts no firefighters... now what ? atlas shrugged ? i guess the next thing would be to force some people to be cops, and.....

If the top 1% were to disappear, there would be much more income and wealth for the general population, all of whom would pay higher taxes, and have more taxabale income.

Wealth isn't a zero sum game. The top 1 percent isn't preventing you or anybody else from becoming wealthy because they have all the money.

Well, aren't you the gullible little con.

No wealth is NOT a zero sum game, but if you don't make enough money to live on and need a government handout to keep a roof over your head and food on the table - as 40% of WORKING Americans currently do, you can't save money for a down payment, or to start a business. You can't even invest in the stock market, because you have no savings.

60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. It's hard to get ahead when you spend all of your time trying to break even. There are more and more people chasing fewer and fewer middle income pay checks, and not enough "good paying" jobs to go around.

If you are born poor, you will receive an inferior education, in a ghetto school with few resources. You will have fewere scholarship opportunities than kids in the wealthier suburbs, and more competition for the ones there are. If you do manage to go to university, you will graduate with more student debt, which will hobble you for years.

When Reagan was elected, you had a 20% chance of being born into poverty and working your way out of poverty, through education and hard work. Today, you have a 2% chance. The "American Dream" costs $120,000 per year to achieve and maintain. The average American salary is than $61,900 per year

I was going to give you a thumbs up but your wrong about savings. People need the best of everything...so that's why they live pay check to pay check