The Truth About The 1%

• Con_Alma

  http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303519404579352551767664072?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303519404579352551767664072.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
  
  Very interesting article.
  
  "...
  According to the White House budget office, in 2010 the federal government raised approximately $900 billion from the individual income tax, of which about $350 billion (39%) was paid by the top 1% of income earners. The remainder of total federal tax collections (nearly $2.2 trillion in total) was paid through corporate, payroll, estate and excise taxes.
  Those who want to "tax the rich" to redistribute income to the poor and middle class usually propose to raise the marginal rates on incomes or the capital-gains rate, or both. Yet as Scott Hodge recently documented in these pages, it will not be easy to raise vast sums this way.
  The individual income tax accounts for slightly less than half of federal revenue and the top 1% already pays a substantial share of that total. Most of the wealth owned by the top 1%, and especially by the "super rich" in the top 0.1%, is also held in stocks, bonds and real estate that are not subject to income taxes until sold. It is a fool's errand to try to raise the living standards of the bottom 60% through higher income taxes on the top 1% or 0.1%. ..."
• isadore

  gosh it is nice to know what the Murdoch owned WSJ thinks about how the problem. Sounds like a good argument for expanding taxing to the stocks, bonds and real estate of the super rich not taxed now.
  
  also end the cap on FICA
• Con_Alma

  ...nice to know indeed. Clarity is always helpful.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "also end the cap on FICA"
  
  And end the cap on benefits, or admit to what the US is, a welfare state where we let people that have no stake in the game vote in their royalty to bless them with benefits. The US is a freaking joke right now, and it will end badly, like Italy and Greece.
• queencitybuckeye

  isadore;1581913 wrote:gosh it is nice to know what the Murdoch owned WSJ thinks about how the problem. Sounds like a good argument for expanding taxing to the stocks, bonds and real estate of the super rich not taxed now.
  
  also end the cap on FICA

  If you care the least amount about fairness, you would have to end the cap on both the contribution and on the benefit paid. Good idea.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;1581927 wrote:"also end the cap on FICA"
  
  And end the cap on benefits, or admit to what the US is, a welfare state where we let people that have no stake in the game vote in their royalty to bless them with benefits. The US is a freaking joke right now, and it will end badly, like Italy and Greece.

  The only way the U.S. ends up like Italy or Greece is if it starts issuing treasury securities payable in Euros upon maturity instead of U.S. Dollars. Hope This Helps.
• isadore

  Manhattan Buckeye;1581927 wrote:"also end the cap on FICA"
  
  And end the cap on benefits, or admit to what the US is, a welfare state where we let people that have no stake in the game vote in their royalty to bless them with benefits. The US is a freaking joke right now, and it will end badly, like Italy and Greece.

  gosh the suffering rich always have their defenders and those who deny basic rights to a large section of American society. One of the great steps forward in American democracy was the elimination of property qualifications to vote.
• BoatShoes

  Con_Alma;1581896 wrote:http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303519404579352551767664072?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303519404579352551767664072.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
  
  Very interesting article.
  
  "... It is a fool's errand to try to raise the living standards of the bottom 60% through higher income taxes on the top 1% or 0.1%. ..."

  This is correct. Good thing Taxes don't fund government spending in our country and a direct tax on Capital is the most efficient type of tax because it ensures wealth is deployed to its highest and best use and would allow us to permanently repeal the income tax if we eliminated the apportionment rule.
• QuakerOats

  isadore;1581913 wrote:gosh it is nice to know what the Murdoch owned WSJ thinks about how the problem. Sounds like a good argument for expanding taxing to the stocks, bonds and real estate of the super rich not taxed now.
  
  also end the cap on FICA

  
  Actually sounds like a good argument for issuing 1099's on the imputed income for the all the welfare benefits effectively paid 'under the table', for which no tax revenue is generated. The $30,000 a year in housing/utility/food transfer payments must be taxed, so that ALL Americans share in taxes paid ----- we ALL must have some skin in the game. Relying on the 1% to pay for everyone else's laziness is a mighty dangerous game ...... one that will come to an end, sooner rather than later.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  BoatShoes;1581946 wrote:The only way the U.S. ends up like Italy or Greece is if it starts issuing treasury securities payable in Euros upon maturity instead of U.S. Dollars. Hope This Helps.

  Or the US dollar loses its currency status as the standard....did you think the Euro's ever thought their currency would sour? It can and will happen if we continue to artificially prop it up.
• isadore

  QuakerOats;1581966 wrote:Actually sounds like a good argument for issuing 1099's on the imputed income for the all the welfare benefits effectively paid 'under the table', for which no tax revenue is generated. The $30,000 a year in housing/utility/food transfer payments must be taxed, so that ALL Americans share in taxes paid ----- we ALL must have some skin in the game. Relying on the 1% to pay for everyone else's laziness is a mighty dangerous game ...... one that will come to an end, sooner rather than later.

  QuakerOats wrote: Relying on the 1% to pay for everyone else's laziness is a mighty dangerous game,.

  LOL All of us are lazy but the 1%. Give the rich a tax break by increasing the tax on those that have little or nothing, Ebenezer you are unbelievable. You want us to cut some slack to these plutocrats have been on a free ride for the last 30 plus years.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;1581969 wrote:Or the US dollar loses its currency status as the standard....did you think the Euro's ever thought their currency would sour? It can and will happen if we continue to artificially prop it up.

  The U.S. Dollar will never cease to be the reserve currency so long as we run persistent annual trade deficits buying up the wealth of the world with U.S. dollars.
  
  But, even if it did, that is totally and completely irrelevant because Japan, Australia and the United Kingdom also can never become Greece or Italy unless they start issuing debt obligations that have to be paid in Euros, Gold, Some other commodity or anything else that they don't issue at will.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "Give the rich a tax break by increasing the tax on those that have little or nothing"
  
  3 comments:
  
  1) Any tax at all is an increase on those that pay nothing (or get credits in return)
  
  2) It isn't just having nothing, it is doing nothing.
  
  3) To that point this administration has been toxic to employment opportunities. To the extent that someone is upset about #2 above, just look at this administration and its hostility towards business (e.g. declaring "war on coal"). We elected a bunch of eggheads with no business acumen, and we got we deserved.....a failing economy and nation. We all can't sit and play Call of Duty and watch Mad Men all day and expect China to pay for it.
  
  The incompetence of the supporters of this economically inept administration is staggering. Our young people are pillaged with debt, have few employment opportunities and we have so many unfunded pension obligations we can't inflate our way out of it.
  
  So what is your point again?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "because Japan, Australia and the United Kingdom"
  
  Do you want to be any of those countries? Japan is a catastrophe social-wise, UK is getting there and Australia has held its head above water by completely halting any immigration.
• Tiernan

  You other 99% better start pulling your weight.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;1581988 wrote:"because Japan, Australia and the United Kingdom"
  
  Do you want to be any of those countries? Japan is a catastrophe social-wise, UK is getting there and Australia has held its head above water by completely halting any immigration.

  This post is totally and utterly irrelevant to your original proposition. The U.S. can never "become Greece or Italy" and anyone who posts on the internet suggesting that they can ought to have an avatar that is a flashing neon sign that says "I don't know what I'm talking about".
• Manhattan Buckeye

  BoatShoes;1581993 wrote:This post is totally and utterly irrelevant to your original proposition. The U.S. can never "become Greece or Italy" and anyone who posts on the internet suggesting that they can ought to have an avatar that is a flashing neon sign that says "I don't know what I'm talking about".

  No it doesn't have the centuries of history. We are a relatively young country and we are diverse. We aren't all Italians, we're a mix of people where socialism has no chance of working. What we can do is become fractured because people in Texas are sick of what is happening in Maryland/DC/Northern Virginia.
  
  Anyone that even remotely defends the current administration and its godawful economic policy over the last 5 years should have the same flashing neon - but one with idiot! included. Obama has been a disaster. Because the mainstream media won't cover it doesn't make it any less correct.
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;1581995 wrote:No it doesn't have the centuries of history. We are a relatively young country and we are diverse. We aren't all Italians, we're a mix of people where socialism has no chance of working. What we can do is become fractured because people in Texas are sick of what is happening in Maryland/DC/Northern Virginia.
  
  Anyone that even remotely defends the current administration and its godawful economic policy over the last 5 years should have the same flashing neon - but one with idiot! included. Obama has been a disaster. Because the mainstream media won't cover it doesn't make it any less correct.

  Your steam of consciousness is changing the topic with each new post. Hope this helps.
• QuakerOats

  isadore;1581978 wrote:LOL All of us are lazy but the 1%. Give the rich a tax break by increasing the tax on those that have little or nothing, Ebenezer you are unbelievable. You want us to cut some slack to these plutocrats have been on a free ride for the last 30 plus years.

  
  You can't read and/or comprehend. I did not say everyone but the 1% are lazy (although that is what you wanted to hear). Many beyond the 1% pay taxes, but it is the 1%, or top 10%, that are paying almost the entire load; that is no way to run a country. And neither is allowing tens of millions of people to reap tax-free sustenance on the backs of the productive. ALL should contribute something.
  
  Get in the game.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1582011 wrote:You can't read and/or comprehend. I did not say everyone but the 1% are lazy (although that is what you wanted to hear). Many beyond the 1% pay taxes, but it is the 1%, or top 10%, that are paying almost the entire load; that is no way to run a country. And neither is allowing tens of millions of people to reap tax-free sustenance on the backs of the productive. ALL should contribute something.
  
  Get in the game.

  You assume taxes fund government spending which is false. Income taxes regulate the purchasing power of private citizens. Should probably be cutting taxes on all citizens right now but there's no reason to delete the purchasing power of low income earners. Indeed, a negative income tax like Milton Friedman advocated and Richard Nixon almost got passed would be good public policy.
  
  Also, the Earned Income Tax Credit favored by Ronald Reagan and the Child Tax Credits favored by President George W. Bush also raised the purchasing power of low income earners by ensuring that they would pay negative tax liabilities.
  
  Hard to believe all those conservatives and republicans would support negative tax liabilities for all those takers!!!
• Manhattan Buckeye

  BoatShoes;1581998 wrote:Your steam of consciousness is changing the topic with each new post. Hope this helps.

  Did you mean stream, and at least I make arguments....you're nothing but a bootlicker, like Isadore. I'm not sure where you work (or if you do) but our premiums for health insurance just increased by an average of 35%.....thankfully we use my wife's because she works, like most two-earner households and have no plans of ever retiring.
  
  You seem like a battered spouse, "Hit me again Ike, and this time put some stank into it!" Is sucking up to Obama worth the personal hit you are taking?
• BoatShoes

  Manhattan Buckeye;1582036 wrote:Did you mean stream, and at least I make arguments....you're nothing but a bootlicker, like Isadore. I'm not sure where you work (or if you do) but our premiums for health insurance just increased by an average of 35%.....thankfully we use my wife's because she works, like most two-earner households and have no plans of ever retiring.
  
  You seem like a battered spouse, "Hit me again Ike, and this time put some stank into it!" Is sucking up to Obama worth the personal hit you are taking?

  Yes, I meant stream. You made an argument that the United States would become like Greece and Italy. I refuted that argument. You then changed the topic in each subsequent post which you did again in this one, randomly discussing your health insurance premiums out of nowhere. Other posters I'm sure can comment about your penchant for throwing irrelevant details about your personal life totally unrelated thread topics.
  
  What I don't do is levy insults like "bootlicker" or "battered spouse"
  
  I have made no comments that have anything to do with the Obama Administration in this thread. Hope this helps.
  
  What I did suggest is that you might consider not commenting on how the United States can become Italy or Greece because the United States has not entered into a treaty wherein they relinquished their monetary sovereignty and consequently such an assertion is erroneous.
• sleeper

  

  I believe we should lower taxes of the 1% substantially and increase taxes on the bottom half who pay nothing. Also, if you don't pay taxes you don't get a vote.
• isadore

  QuakerOats;1582011 wrote:You can't read and/or comprehend. I did not say everyone but the 1% are lazy (although that is what you wanted to hear). Many beyond the 1% pay taxes, but it is the 1%, or top 10%, that are paying almost the entire load; that is no way to run a country. And neither is allowing tens of millions of people to reap tax-free sustenance on the backs of the productive. ALL should contribute something.
  
  Get in the game.

  Unbelievable, obviously you can not accept your own word.

  QuakerOats wrote:Actually sounds like a good argument for issuing 1099's on the imputed income for the all the welfare benefits effectively paid 'under the table', for which no tax revenue is generated. The $30,000 a year in housing/utility/food transfer payments must be taxed, so that ALL Americans share in taxes paid ----- we ALL must have some skin in the game. Relying on the 1% to pay for everyone else's laziness is a mighty dangerous game ...... one that will come to an end, sooner rather than later.
  

  Everyone else's laziness, Ebenezer you can not deny your own words or now try to wiggle out of them
• QuakerOats

  isadore;1582053 wrote:Unbelievable, obviously you can not accept your own word. Everyone else's laziness, Ebenezer you can not deny your own words or now try to wiggle out of them

  
  It is a simple question: should those who receive free benefits > food, shelter, utilities < have to pay some amount of tax on those free benefits? Everyone else has to pay taxes on wages or imputed income, why shouldn't those who receive all of their sustenance, for free, have to pay tax on the value of the benefit? After all, we ALL should pay something.
  
  Please, answer the question.