- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Wealthy? you might have money (and I seriously question that) but you are certainly not wealthy IMO.
Wealth takes more than money IMO
Wealthy
2
: characterized by abundance : ample
Wealthy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
You have no clue what you speak of
Yes I do because I said what I think.
Well you have no idea about me so ignorance i guess is bliss
rant on I am outta here
anything that interferes with your bash the rich nonsense you will reject no matter how strong the proof
I am supplying facts to a faith based dogmatic
Wrong, I am not the one who blames others for being a failure. I have done quite well and I laugh at those who are mad about that fact
Read your list of whinings. Don't they include: the liberal media, unions, teachers, workers, liberals, and the Obama monster. :coffeepap
why should ability to pay trump use? maybe if those who cannot "afford" more taxes had to pay more every time they voted for big spending dems they might figure out not to vote for those pimps
Ahhheeemmm you left out parasites and leeches.
Please note this for the future:mrgreen:
that a funny claim given several of you make the same nonsensical points at me over and over
you are emotobabbling nonsense-I supplied facts that counter your faith based claims
The top rate was always a red herring argument, since nobody ever paid it, and mostof the income of the top brackets was from capital gains and dividends, which got an automatic 50% deduction on the tax schedules. For example, on $100 in capital gains only $50 was counted as taxable, and that is after a ton of other deductions in the tax code that nobody else was rich enough to qualify for and even customized laws passed especially for a particular corporation. Anyone who has read the tax schedules would know this, and for those who don't just find them somewhere and see for yourself.
In fact their beloved icon Ronald Regan tripled the national debt in his term from 1 trillion to 3 trillion. In fact he spent more than every president before him combined.Repubs spend more than dems.. Look it up.. How many repubs have left the next president budget surplus?? None.. How many dems?? At least one..
Again your views are still flawed..
why should ability to pay trump use? maybe if those who cannot "afford" more taxes had to pay more every time they voted for big spending dems they might figure out not to vote for those pimps
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about your poor comparison. Go figure. :coffeepap
It has already been documented a few pages back that the actual rate back then after deductions was about 50 - 60%. Still much, much higher than today.
That works out to an actual tax rate of 25% to 30%.
Hey all you have to do is show me the numbers where the rich use more of what the government offers .. thats all .. I'll be waiting
I believe I linked some earlier. We talked about corporate welfare, about who uses the courts and other services, and about an educated work force. We dicussed the bailouts, and the breaks. But here's some more:
Middle class income has not risen in thirty years, while the speculators and the loan sharks who are responsible for this current crisis still get their inflated bonuses.
How do the rich make their profits? Do they manufacture goods? Then they must ship them on the roads and rails that are built with public money. Did they invent Ebay or Facebook? Then they profit from the internet which was developed originally with government support. Do they hire workers? Then much of their workforce has been educated and trained in public schools, community colleges, universities that are publicly funded. All business and commerce depends on the common infrastructure. Those who benefit extraordinarily from the commons must contribute back their fair share. If they do not, they siphon wealth away from the rest of us. They are asking us to subsidize their luxuries while we pinch pennies and scrape the bottom of the pan.
Some people might say that the rich deserve their golden hordes, that they earn their wealth by providing jobs. But subsidizing the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us does not create jobs--witness the current levels of unemployment! Moreover, it comes at the direct expense of the real, productive work of the world. Those who choose professions that involve caring for others, nurturing children, teaching, nursing, healing, farming, providing food, clothing and shelter surely deserve rewards for their labor. Now they are being asked to forego the pensions they counted upon for comfort in their old age, the health care they need to remain strong, the education that could allow their children to thrive, the homes they've scrimped and saved for, and to mortage their grandchildren's futures all so that the ultra-rich who profit from their work can avoid their share of our common social responsibilities.
On Faith Panelists Blog: The rich benefit from society and should give back - Starhawk
Urbanomics: How the rich and poor benefit from government
Raise taxes on the rich | Marketplace From American Public Media
Now anyone can do this google search thingie. Just follow the posts of the prof. But the point is, the rich get a bunch from the government. More than poor, and **** lot more than the middle class. I can find the worlds smallest violin for them if you want. :coffeepap
It has already been documented a few pages back that the actual rate back then after deductions was about 50 - 60%. Still much, much higher than today.
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
here are two sites that maybe you should look at .. the first shows tax receipts collected by the government for each year .. look closely at the years before Reagan cut the top tax rate .. and the years following it … you will notice that the government took in more after the tax cuts .. then before the tax cuts .. .in fact by 1990 government revenue actually doubled ..
Now the 2nd site .. shows that the top 5% bracket actually paid more in taxes in every year after the tax cuts given by Reagan ..
So lets see … after tax cuts we increased government revenue … and increased what the top bracket was paying in taxes .. so what part of that is it that you don't agree with ??
Nope, the actual tax rate was 90% for the top bracket and after deductions and loopholes, it came to an effective rate of about 50 - 60%.
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
here are two sites that maybe you should look at .. the first shows tax receipts collected by the government for each year .. look closely at the years before Reagan cut the top tax rate .. and the years following it … you will notice that the government took in more after the tax cuts .. then before the tax cuts .. .in fact by 1990 government revenue actually doubled ..
Now the 2nd site .. shows that the top 5% bracket actually paid more in taxes in every year after the tax cuts given by Reagan ..
So lets see … after tax cuts we increased government revenue … and increased what the top bracket was paying in taxes .. so what part of that is it that you don't agree with ??
Not on capital gains. A '90% tax rate' on $100 in capital gains would be $45 maximum, i.e.45%, in the days when the top rate was '90%'. Read the tax forms themselves, and not what somebody on the internet says. Nobody ever paid the top rate then, either.
I believe I linked some earlier. We talked about corporate welfare, about who uses the courts and other services, and about an educated work force. We dicussed the bailouts, and the breaks. But here's some more:
Middle class income has not risen in thirty years, while the speculators and the loan sharks who are responsible for this current crisis still get their inflated bonuses.
How do the rich make their profits? Do they manufacture goods? Then they must ship them on the roads and rails that are built with public money. Did they invent Ebay or Facebook? Then they profit from the internet which was developed originally with government support. Do they hire workers? Then much of their workforce has been educated and trained in public schools, community colleges, universities that are publicly funded. All business and commerce depends on the common infrastructure. Those who benefit extraordinarily from the commons must contribute back their fair share. If they do not, they siphon wealth away from the rest of us. They are asking us to subsidize their luxuries while we pinch pennies and scrape the bottom of the pan.
Some people might say that the rich deserve their golden hordes, that they earn their wealth by providing jobs. But subsidizing the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us does not create jobs--witness the current levels of unemployment! Moreover, it comes at the direct expense of the real, productive work of the world. Those who choose professions that involve caring for others, nurturing children, teaching, nursing, healing, farming, providing food, clothing and shelter surely deserve rewards for their labor. Now they are being asked to forego the pensions they counted upon for comfort in their old age, the health care they need to remain strong, the education that could allow their children to thrive, the homes they've scrimped and saved for, and to mortage their grandchildren's futures all so that the ultra-rich who profit from their work can avoid their share of our common social responsibilities.
On Faith Panelists Blog: The rich benefit from society and should give back - Starhawk
Urbanomics: How the rich and poor benefit from government
Raise taxes on the rich | Marketplace From American Public Media
Now anyone can do this google search thingie. Just follow the posts of the prof. But the point is, the rich get a bunch from the government. More than poor, and **** lot more than the middle class. I can find the worlds smallest violin for them if you want. :coffeepap
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?