Reply With Quote
You do realize that is a direct result of the tax cuts/credits primarily introduced by republicans right?
LOL wingnut wishes it was legal so he could get his needle- hard after unloading a magazine into a Mexican family.
You do realize that is a direct result of the tax cuts/credits primarily introduced by republicans right?
hey guys, just because I wanna shoot mexicans doesn't make me a racist
If we're getting more and more people not making enough to file a tax return and the country still shows growth (which it does, even if small), then what's happening is that the redistribution is going up. Redistribution doesn't happen only through taxes. When john doe pays his cable bill, the money is getting redistributed upstream (in this case through a service, but it's still redistribution nonetheless).
So yeah, if it does get past 50%, what that means is that few people are soaking up too much money, and the class mobility is largely going down instead of up. Misery for a lot, oligarchy for just a few. So the question is, how do we address that?
By shooting them as they cross, lib
What did the country deficit looked like then and now? You didn't wonder why?
Think, people, think!
I'll take that as a complement, coming from you.
You think that has merit to me, saying it was because of republicans?
Absolutely. Your knee jerk position is always to defend republicans/corporations/establishment.
Oh, Ok... When you referenced the 47%, I thought you were advocating "broadening the base" which means taxing (with federal income tax) that McDonald's working single mom.
47% of this country having no tax liability doesn't mean our tax code is ed up like WC seems to think. It means our middle class has completely evaporated and nearly half our country lives in poverty because so much wealth has concentrated towards the top. The Walton family controls as much wealth as the entire bottom 30% of this country. Our wealth is way more unevenly distributed than any Republicans care to admit.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationw...igtaxes29.html
How dare they cross into our land, earn ty wages, then pay taxes that they never get back based on said wages!
This is another thing people seem to ignore. Illegal immigrants keep social security and medicare going by paying money into it they never get back. People who pretend they're some huge liability to our economy are kidding themselves.
and of course, there is a huge ripoff of undoc ims that are underpaid or not paid at all, because the employers know the undocs won't report their employer cheating to the govt.
It looks like the Repugs will have to climb down from their bubba-suckering "no amnesty" hyper-legal bull , as there will be some kind of amnesty and path to permanent residency. Sucks for the long line of legal residency applicants, but just maybe sometimes once in a while, life isn't fair.
I do agree that the border must be sealed better since the economy recovering and the residency for undocs will be again a huge magnet for border crossings.
This is why liberals need guns too. When it comes down to it, the only solution to deal with people like nutjob conservatives like WC is to be prepared to shoot them in the face when they opt for violence as they usually conclude. This is why Donald trump was tweeting revolution nonsense on election night, they love instigating violence because all of there other advocacies are ineffective, nevermind vast majority of them can't handle a paper cut.
I think that this might be Obamas defining moment. To the cliff we go.
I wonder what those percentages are with regard to purchasing power. More curious than anything.
Conservative Media Promote Myths To Shield Wealthy From Tax Hikes
Levin: Those Who Earn More Than $250,000 Are The "So-Called" Rich. On the November 9 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, conservative radio host Mark Levin implied that those making over $250,000 are not legitimately rich, claiming that President Obama's plan to raise taxes on high-income earners is "trashing the so-called rich."
Willis: "Lots And Lots" Of Middle Income People Make $250,000 A Year. On the November 9 edition of Markets Now, Fox Business host Gerri Willis attempted to portray a tax increase on high income earners as one that affects a large number of Americans
Charles Payne: $250,000 Threshold Not The "Real" Definition Of Rich. On the November 14 edition of America Live, frequent Fox contributor Charles Payne derided Obama's plan to increase tax rates on households making more than $250,000 a year, claiming that this income threshold does not reflect the "real" definition of rich.
REALITY: Very Few Americans Make More Than $250,000 A Year
Census Bureau Data: Median Household Income In U.S. Far Below $250,000. According to the most recent Census Bureau data, median household income currently stands at $50,054, about one fifth of the threshold for Obama's proposed tax rate hikes
Tax Policy Center: Only 6 Million Americans Earn More Than $200,000. According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, "about 6.07 million Americans earned above $200,000 in 2011," making up the top 4.2 percent of taxpayers. The Tax Policy Center and the Census Bureau do not publish data for those earning above the $250,000 threshold.
Politifact: Only 2 Percent Of Households Earn More Than $250,000. A Politifact article reviewing claims made by President Obama found that, according to the Internal Revenue Service, less than 2 percent of earners reported income higher than $250,000. From the article:
Using statistics from the IRS website, we found that 137,988,219 tax returns out of 140,494,127 -- or 98.2 percent -- reported adjusted gross income of less than $250,000 a year in 2009, the most recent data available. [Politifact, accessed 11/19/2012]
etc, etc
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...ld-weal/191498
So just how much more revenue will the IRS get from that 1.8% of filers?
More than they're collecting now. The choking of the revenue stream not only has to stop, it must reverse.
the estate tax cuts alone cost $1T in revenue in the first 10 years.
Tax Rates For America’s Wealthiest Fell In 2010
With debate in Washington focused on the taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans, new data from the Internal Revenue Service shows that the effective tax rates for America’s top earners fell even lower in 2010.
The average effective tax rate fell for all income groups above $500,000, continuing a drop that has occurred for years. For incomes above $10 million, the average rate fell from 22.4 percent in 2009 to 20.7 percent in 2010. The reason for the continual drop is clear: the 2003 high-income Bush tax cuts lowered the rate on investment income, and wealthy Americans are deriving more income from investments than they ever have, the Wall Street Journal reports:
The reason for the drop in average tax rates is no secret: It’s the special 15% top rates for capital gains and dividends that President George W. Bush pushed through. In 2009, taxpayers with incomes exceeding $10 million reported 35.8% of their income as capital gains and dividends. That rose to 48.5% for 2010.
Low capital gains rates have helped the wealthy pay lower and lower tax rates even as their incomes have skyrocketed. And while capital gains income makes up almost half of the incomes of the wealthiest Americans, it accounts for 2.2 percent or less for earners under $200,000. Half of all capital gains income goes to just to the richest 0.1 percent of Americans.
The capital gains rate has been steadily eroded since President Ronald Reagan taxed such income equal to wages in the 1980s, and the result has been rising income inequality. A January 2012 study found that low capital gains rates were the biggest driver of American income inequality, which now rivals the levels seen in countries like Ivory Coast and Pakistan. In 2010, the capital gains preference helped the richest 1 percent capture 93 percent of all income gains
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...-fell-in-2010/
A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy
SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. "This is a good one," he says enthusiastically. "I'm in it, and I think you should be, too."
Would your reply possibly be this? "Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you're saying we're going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent." Only in Grover Norquist's imagination does such a response exist.
Between 1951 and 1954, when the capital gains rate was 25 percent and marginal rates on dividends reached 91 percent in extreme cases, I sold securities and did pretty well. In the years from 1956 to 1969, the top marginal rate fell modestly, but was still a lofty 70 percent - and the tax rate on capital gains inched up to 27.5 percent. I was managing funds for investors then. Never did anyone mention taxes as a reason to forgo an investment opportunity that I offered.
Under those burdensome rates, moreover, both employment and the gross domestic product (a measure of the nation's economic output) increased at a rapid clip. The middle class and the rich alike gained ground.
So let's forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if - gasp - capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. The ultrarich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities.
And, wow, do we have plenty to invest. The Forbes 400, the wealthiest individuals in America, hit a new group record for wealth this year: $1.7 trillion. That's more than five times the $300 billion total in 1992. In recent years, my gang has been leaving the middle class in the dust.
A huge tail wind from tax cuts has pushed us along. In 1992, the tax paid by the 400 highest incomes in the United States (a different universe from the Forbes list) averaged 26.4 percent of adjusted gross income. In 2009, the most recent year reported, the rate was 19.9 percent. It's nice to have friends in high places.
The group's average income in 2009 was $202 million - which works out to a "wage" of $97,000 per hour, based on a 40-hour workweek. (I'm assuming they're paid during lunch hours.) Yet more than a quarter of these ultrawealthy paid less than 15 percent of their take in combined federal income and payroll taxes. Half of this crew paid less than 20 percent. And - brace yourself - a few actually paid nothing.
This outrage points to the necessity for more than a simple revision in upper-end tax rates, though that's the place to start. I support President Obama's proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 - maybe $500,000 or so.
Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.
Above all, we should not postpone these changes in the name of "reforming" the tax code. True, changes are badly needed. We need to get rid of arrangements like "carried interest" that enable income from labor to be magically converted into capital gains. And it's sickening that a Cayman Islands mail drop can be central to tax maneuvering by wealthy individuals and corporations.
But the reform of such complexities should not promote delay in our correcting simple and expensive inequities. We can't let those who want to protect the privileged get away with insisting that we do nothing until we can do everything.
Our government's goal should be to bring in revenues of 18.5 percent of G.D.P. and spend about 21 percent of G.D.P. - levels that have been attained over extended periods in the past and can clearly be reached again. As the math makes clear, this won't stem our budget deficits; in fact, it will continue them. But assuming even conservative projections about inflation and economic growth, this ratio of revenue to spending will keep America's debt stable in relation to the country's economic output.
In the last fiscal year, we were far away from this fiscal balance - bringing in 15.5 percent of G.D.P. in revenue and spending 22.4 percent. Correcting our course will require major concessions by both Republicans and Democrats.
All of America is waiting for Congress to offer a realistic and concrete plan for getting back to this fiscally sound path. Nothing less is acceptable.
In the meantime, maybe you'll run into someone with a terrific investment idea, who won't go forward with it because of the tax he would owe when it succeeds. Send him my way. Let me unburden him.
Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=999792&f=28&sub=Contributor
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
