Why we have to redistribute income through taxes

[Dad2three]

I don't know of a single rich person who doesn't pay any taxes.

As far as eating them alive, you'd only be harming yourself. No rich, no jobs. No jobs, you starve. Brilliant move Sherlock.

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.
another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.


The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston | Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).


Yeah, the 'rich' create jobs *shaking head* Ever look around and recognize without demand, jobs aren't created?


The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.



A recent IRS study found that one in every 189 taxpayers earning $200,000 or more in adjusted gross income paid no income tax in 2009, the most recent year for which complete data is available. That's more than 10,000 wealthy households paying no taxes anywhere in the world, and more than 35,000 paying no U.S. income tax.

How Thousands of Wealthy People Pay No Taxes (It's Totally Legal) - DailyFinance

Wow...1 in 189.....Terrible !!!!!!

If you do the reverse math, you see how many people are making over 200K.

That is America !

Thanks Ronald Reagan for all you did.

So you agree, the poster was incorrect and thousands of 'job creators' pay no federal taxes and are just moochers!


Reagan? The guy who funded terrorists like Bin Laden before he cut and ran from them? Sure

 

[Dad2three]

Simplistic minds seek simplistic answers...


Tax Foundation Reveals Scant Link Between Taxes And Prosperity

Another day, another weird map from a libertarian group that seems designed to debunk libertarianism. Last time it was strange assertions about freedom, today it's the Tax Foundation explaining why there are no successful businesses in California or New York:


Now it would be a little silly to say that relatively high business tax rates are the cause of California and New York's success as the pillars of America's very successful high-tech, finance, and media industries. But this map seems to provide strong support for the hypothesis that policymakers seeking to create a prosperous local economy shouldn't sweat the business tax rate too much.


State tax climate: Tax Foundation shows taxes don't matter.




A new state-by-state count of multimillionaires shows that some of the highest tax states created the most millionaires. The study, from UBS and Wealth-X, ranked states by their populations of people worth $30 million or more—presumably the most mobile part of the wealth chain and the most sensitive to taxes.


California was the top producer of multimillionaires over the past year, gaining more than 1,600 people worth $30 million or more. The state also has the nation's highest tax rate—13.3 percent—for people making $1 million or more.

Do high state taxes chase out millionaires?

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm so sick of people crying victim.

Man up and pull your own weight and stop whining it's disgusting.

It really is. Nothing irritates me more than an American boy, whining that he can't make it in life.

No American can say they have it just so hard. You haven't been to the millions of places where people are literally willing to die, to get the life these people whine and cry about.

Good grief boys... grow some balls, act like a man, and work for a living like the rest of us.

You know conservative economics is a failure when they have to keep reminding us how much better our poor is than the poor in 3rd world countries!


Conservatives simplistic minds

If you are rich it is because of your merits. If you are poor its because of your faults.

Progressive's simplistic minds

If you are rich it's because "we" allowed you to become rich. If you are poor it's always the fault of someone else "exploiting" you.

 

[TooTall]

Compensation as a percentage of GDP peaked in about 1980. It has declined by about 6 percentage points since then. You can blame government regulations, taxes and social programs for the decline.

Don't be silly. The share of compensation falls because an ever bigger share is taken as profit by the company owners. And that's exactly what happens when you start replacing workers with machines.

Also, I don't know what you have to be smoking all these years if you think that regulations and taxes increased since 1980. It was the other way around.

You do replace workers with machines, however other workers were employed to make those machines and still others to maintain them.

Federal income taxes were reduced by Bush 43 for ALL taxpayers that resulted in more take home pay, and, if you think regulations haven't gone through the roof in the last 6 years, you have lost any credibility that you may have had.

 

[Dad2three]

High icome people pay a disproportionate share of taxes. The lower middle class is undertaxed. This is not even in dispute.

LIE

Total U.S. taxes are barely progressive, as shown in this table and chart from Citizens for Tax Justice. The bottom 99 percent pays a 27.5 percent total tax rate on average, while the top 1 percent pays an average 29 percent tax rate, according to 2011 data from Citizens for Tax Justice.

The share of total taxes paid by each income group is similar to that group’s share of total income.


Who Pays Taxes in America? | CTJReports

You're a ******* dishonest liar. Just look at the chart, which doubtless you cannot read.
Federal income taxes are disproportiantely paid by high income earners. That remains a fact, despite your idiotic attempts to deflect and dissimulate.

Federal income taxes? Oh you mean that part of the pie at historic (Post WW2) lows of federal revenues, 42%? AND?

 

[Dad2three]

Compensation as a percentage of GDP peaked in about 1980. It has declined by about 6 percentage points since then. You can blame government regulations, taxes and social programs for the decline.

Don't be silly. The share of compensation falls because an ever bigger share is taken as profit by the company owners. And that's exactly what happens when you start replacing workers with machines.

Also, I don't know what you have to be smoking all these years if you think that regulations and taxes increased since 1980. It was the other way around.

You do replace workers with machines, however other workers were employed to make those machines and still others to maintain them.

Federal income taxes were reduced by Bush 43 for ALL taxpayers that resulted in more take home pay, and, if you think regulations haven't gone through the roof in the last 6 years, you have lost any credibility that you may have had.

MORE R/W CRAP

Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs
By BRUCE BARTLETT

These constraints have led Republicans to embrace the idea that government regulation is the principal factor holding back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing and hiring.

No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber.



The table below presents the bureau’s data. As one can see, the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for business products and services is vastly more important.

These results are supported by surveys. ...


Academic research has also failed to find evidence that regulation is a significant factor in unemployment.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You mean both in private Corps? AND? What does that have to do with public CEO pay or the FACT that BOTH of those support Dem policy like higher taxes on the 'job creators'? Now they are just selfish? Oh wait, no that would be CEO's who support GOP policies!

That wasnt even coherent. Even for you. You're just spewing shit in some kind of pathetic failed attempt to make a point that is obviously beyond you.
If Oprah wants to pay more she can write a check today. How many actors, singers, etc take a one dollar a year salary like the 9 CEOs of corporations I posted?
Greed is not wanting to keep what you've made. Greed is wanting what someone else has made.

Good think O and B support Gov't policy versus that 'voluntary' crap you moth off about...

9 CEO's? Oh stock options where they've gained their Corps NOT able to do that pre Reagan, weird right (stock for payments)...

I know CEO's cutting costs at all available options, layoffs, off shoring jobs, temp workers, 'helps' the stock prices (at least temporarily)and the top 1/10th of 1% who get over 50% of Corp dividends, but how does it help US?


Higher the Pay, the Worse the CEO

Study: The Higher the Pay, the Worse the CEO (Vocativ)

Daniel Edward Rosen looks at a study from the University of Utah, which shows that companies that pay CEOs more than $20 million a year have average annual losses over $1 billion.


The Higher the Pay, the Worse the CEO | Vocativ

Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute Fellow and Director of Research Susan Holmberg and Campus Network alumna Lydia Austin look at additional ways high CEO pay distorts the economy.


Fixing a Hole: How the Tax Code for Executive Pay Distorts Economic Incentives and Burdens Taxpayers

Fixing a Hole: How the Tax Code for Executive Pay Distorts Economic Incentives and Burdens Taxpayers | Roosevelt Institute

The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says

Across the board, the more CEOs get paid, the worse their companies do over the next three years, according to extensive new research. This is true whether they’re CEOs at the highest end of the pay spectrum or the lowest. “The more CEOs are paid, the worse the firm does over the next three years, as far as stock performance and even accounting performance,” says one of the authors of the study, Michael Cooper of the University of Utah’s David Eccles School of Business.


The Highest-Paid CEOs Are The Worst Performers, New Study Says - Forbes

the top 1/10th of 1% who get over 50% of Corp dividends,

You have a link for this claim?

 

[Mathbud1]

Plutocrats need to STFU, pay their taxes, ride their goldplated jet skis and be thankful we haven't eaten them alive yet.

I don't know of a single rich person who doesn't pay any taxes.

As far as eating them alive, you'd only be harming yourself. No rich, no jobs. No jobs, you starve. Brilliant move Sherlock.

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.
another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/06/us-column-dcjohnston-top-idUSBRE85500720120606

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).


Yeah, the 'rich' create jobs *shaking head* Ever look around and recognize without demand, jobs aren't created?


The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.



A recent IRS study found that one in every 189 taxpayers earning $200,000 or more in adjusted gross income paid no income tax in 2009, the most recent year for which complete data is available. That's more than 10,000 wealthy households paying no taxes anywhere in the world, and more than 35,000 paying no U.S. income tax.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/06/05/wealthy-pay-no-taxes-muni-bonds-deductions-1-percent/

" Ever look around and recognize without demand, jobs aren't created?"

There is always demand for jobs. Demand doesn't create jobs. People with ideas, motivation, and money create jobs.

 

[Oldstyle]

And what the success of New York and California shows me is that two industries...financial in New York and high tech in California are centered in Silicon Valley and New York City. If you work in either, chances are you're living around Silicon Valley or around New York City because you need to be close to where the action is.

Disagree with me? Then kindly explain why New York has had to come up with "tax free zones" to encourage investment in the State if their overall economy is so strong? Obviously it's because if you take away the people getting rich on Wall Street from this latest stock market bubble the New York economy is NOT that strong.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Plutocrats need to STFU, pay their taxes, ride their goldplated jet skis and be thankful we haven't eaten them alive yet.

Genius, they already do.
BUt for the the wealthiest having the most significant tax burden, that burden would fall upon you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The problem is obvious to anyone capable of reading charts. Unfortunately, most right wingers aren't that bright.

Nonsense.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The problem is obvious to anyone capable of reading charts. Unfortunately, most right wingers aren't that bright.

A chart that says that, is the reason why GOVERNMENT must step in, in violation of the Constitution?

Your interpretation of the Constitution is flawed. And even if it wasn't, then it would mean the Constitutions had failed to serve the interests of the people and should have been amended.

That is your opinion.

 

[thereisnospoon]

what happens when they run of people to TAX?

almost 47% of people are on some form of government assistance ALREADY

I guess we'll be in what they call that, liberal UTOPIA

The same thing occurring right now in the EU.
That is, entire nations economies collapsing under the weight of massive government giveaways and unreasonable social safety nets.

 

[itfitzme]

Compensation as a percentage of GDP peaked in about 1980. It has declined by about 6 percentage points since then. You can blame government regulations, taxes and social programs for the decline.

Don't be silly. The share of compensation falls because an ever bigger share is taken as profit by the company owners. And that's exactly what happens when you start replacing workers with machines.

Also, I don't know what you have to be smoking all these years if you think that regulations and taxes increased since 1980. It was the other way around.

You do replace workers with machines, however other workers were employed to make those machines and still others to maintain them.

Federal income taxes were reduced by Bush 43 for ALL taxpayers that resulted in more take home pay, and, if you think regulations haven't gone through the roof in the last 6 years, you have lost any credibility that you may have had.

Lower taxes do not equate to more real income. The idea comes from simple minded, and unrealistic, ideas how economics works, macro, micro and business.

All that happens when taxes are lowered is wages fall and business retain the money as addition earnings. At the same time prices rise to consume any additional income that employees retain. How difficult is this to grasp? Real income does not increase. You don't end up able to buy more stuff. And the macro economic data demomstrates it.

What makes for the ability to buy more stuff is simply more people employeed and making more stuff to. Money has no intrinsic value and takes on a its value based on how much stuff is made.

In case you haven't bothered to do the research, since 1998, the labor force participation rate has continued to fall which means less people making stuff. You cannot buy what no one is making.

It is just this simple, lower taxes do not result in you being able to buy more stuff.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why would anyone think that they are entitled to a distribution if they do nothing to earn it?

But they do. Nobody has earned their fortune in an empty space -- they did it while leaving in the society, using the rules that everyone is following. That is why it is only fair to set up the rules (including taxation) so that most people would benefit, not just the lucky few.

Hard work and risk taking should be rewarded -- but making hundreds times more than someone working full time is ridiculous. Nobody is working 4000 hours weeks.

The purpose of taxation is to create and maintain a source of revenue for essential functions of government.
Whomever convinced you that it is the job of government to confiscate the assets of one then turn it over to people such as yourself sold you a bill of goods.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Plutocrats need to STFU, pay their taxes, ride their goldplated jet skis and be thankful we haven't eaten them alive yet.

I don't know of a single rich person who doesn't pay any taxes.

As far as eating them alive, you'd only be harming yourself. No rich, no jobs. No jobs, you starve. Brilliant move Sherlock.

The fortunate 400

400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009.

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.
another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes.


The fortunate 400: David Cay Johnston | Reuters

The 400 richest Americans used to pay 30% of their income on the average to Uncle Sam(but 55% in 1955).


Yeah, the 'rich' create jobs *shaking head* Ever look around and recognize without demand, jobs aren't created?


The US corporate business model has changed: It used to be based on sharing profits with workers to incentivize them and generate loyalty. Now, the model has shifted to rewarding not workers, but shareholders and upper management.. So, as corporate profits soar, the rich get richer and workers are told they are lucky to even have a job so stop whining about income disparity.



A recent IRS study found that one in every 189 taxpayers earning $200,000 or more in adjusted gross income paid no income tax in 2009, the most recent year for which complete data is available. That's more than 10,000 wealthy households paying no taxes anywhere in the world, and more than 35,000 paying no U.S. income tax.

How Thousands of Wealthy People Pay No Taxes (It's Totally Legal) - DailyFinance

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each.

Well, if they lost $300 million in 2008, why would they pay taxes in 2009?
If they gave $300 million to charity in 2009, why would they pay taxes in 2009?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm so sick of people crying victim.

Man up and pull your own weight and stop whining it's disgusting.

Between the end of World War II and the late 1970s, incomes in the United States were becoming more equal. In other words, incomes at the bottom were rising faster than those at the top. Since the late 1970s, this trend has reversed.

Data from tax returns show that the top 1 percent of households received 8.9 percent of all pre-tax income in 1976. In 2008, the top 1 percent share had more than doubled to 21.0 percent.

This level of income inequality, research shows, endangers our society, on a variety of fronts.

Income Inequality | Inequality.org

Between the end of World War II and the late 1970s, incomes in the United States were becoming more equal. In other words, incomes at the bottom were rising faster than those at the top.

It's amazing how well you can do when you're the only major economy in the world not bombed into rubble.

Since the late 1970s, this trend has reversed.

Eventually, those other nations rebuilt.

 

[The Rabbi]

It is amazing the wealth envy displayed, as well as the lack of critical thinking,
At what point is wealth "excessive"? DOnt know. They can't answer.
At what point does somene earn "too much"? Dont know. They can't answer.
Why is it a problem what a corporation pays its CEO? Dont know. They can't answer.
Why is Beyonce's $30M salary different from Larry Ellison's salary? Don't know, they can't answer.

But someone somewhere is making big bucks and I want some dammit! That seems to be the only motivation here.

 

[Mr. H.]

It is amazing the wealth envy displayed, as well as the lack of critical thinking,
At what point is wealth "excessive"? DOnt know. They can't answer.
At what point does somene earn "too much"? Dont know. They can't answer.
Why is it a problem what a corporation pays its CEO? Dont know. They can't answer.
Why is Beyonce's $30M salary different from Larry Ellison's salary? Don't know, they can't answer.

But someone somewhere is making big bucks and I want some dammit! That seems to be the only motivation here.

Liberals confuse riches with wealth.

To them, money is both riches AND wealth.

Just the other day, I was reminiscing with Mrs. H. on a time about 20 years ago when we had not jack shit and were roughing out life renting an old farm house. We couldn't drink the well water, no cell signal, intermittent electricity, the phone would go out whenever it rained, the road rarely got plowed after a snowstorm, the place leaked heat like a sieve, propane ran $500/month in the winter, beans pasta and rice were a menu staple...

Yet we both agreed- those were the happiest and most memorable of times.

My goals in life are constantly short-term in nature. And they change as I age. My newest goal is to stay alive for the next four years and see our daughter graduate college, see my son get married, watch my grandson grow...

After that, I'll set some more short-term goals.

We all need a carrot in life. Conservatives seek the carrot in life.

Liberals seek the carat in life.

 

[williepete]

Just the other day, I was reminiscing with Mrs. H. on a time about 20 years ago when we had not jack shit and were roughing out life renting an old farm house. We couldn't drink the well water, no cell signal, intermittent electricity, the phone would go out whenever it rained, the road rarely got plowed after a snowstorm, the place leaked heat like a sieve, propane ran $500/month in the winter, beans pasta and rice were a menu staple...

Yet we both agreed- those were the happiest and most memorable of times.

I knew there was something I liked about you Mr. H.! You can't keep a good man down.

Sounds very familiar. When I was just out of high school in the 70's, I rented an unheated farm house without power or phone. I was happy to have it. It never occurred to me I was "underprivileged" or that not enough wealth had been "distributed" to me. It was what it was. I went to work and I went to night school and I was going somewhere.

And I was normal back then. Hell, you're 19. You're not making any money. You're going to school. Of course you live in a shell of a farm house. So what?

Back then, I was on my way up. In today's America, I'd be a victim being held down.

As much as I hate to sound like an old fart, I feel sorry for this generation. By buying into this Marxist class struggle BS, they are missing out on the pride of earning something. They're being played as fools--useful idiots.