The 25%ers vs 99%ers

[haymarket]

actually subsidizing dependency has dramatically increased it. and when the dem party benefits by having lots of voters dependent on the federal government, that only encourages the creation of more dependents

Your repeated whipping boy - the Democratic Party - was NOT responsible for the demonized 47% who you like to trot out so often as dependent on the largesse of the federal government. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 created that numerical increase to those high levels. Bush was a Republican President - not a Democrat. In addition, a review of both the tax cut laws will tell you that 93% of the YES votes to pass the bills were provided by Republican members of Congress. Only 7% came from Democrats.

So may want to ask you self why oh why would the Republicans want to create a situation where 47% of income earners paid no federal income tax?

 

[Missed AB]

Which invites the question: how does one acquire wealth if not through income?

What TD is saying related to the past few pages of posts is the current federal tax system does not levy taxes based on assets. they are levied according to yearly income levels....

To answer your question, investments and savings.

 

[Missed AB]

Your repeated whipping boy - the Democratic Party - was NOT responsible for the demonized 47% who you like to trot out so often as dependent on the largesse of the federal government. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 created that numerical increase to those high levels. Bush was a Republican President - not a Democrat. In addition, a review of both the tax cut laws will tell you that 93% of the YES votes to pass the bills were provided by Republican members of Congress. Only 7% came from Democrats.

So may want to ask you self why oh why would the Republicans want to create a situation where 47% of income earners paid no federal income tax?

This coming from the same person who gets offended when anyone blames Clinton for the Bush era problems... The Bush tax cuts are now Obama's Tax cuts. Deal with the current events not historical one's to deflect...

http://politisite.com/2010/12/17/mo...ans-passes-house-goes-to-obama-for-signature/

More Democrats voted for Bush Tax Cuts than Republicans: Passes House 277 to 148, Goes to Obama for Signature

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46531.html

Why would the DEMOCRATS want to continue a situation where 47% of income earners paid no federal income tax?

 

[CriticalThought]

Get a job. If you can't get a job, start a business.

Incredibly naive.

 

[haymarket]

What TD is saying related to the past few pages of posts is the current federal tax system does not levy taxes based on assets. they are levied according to yearly income levels....

To answer your question, investments and savings.

and where does one get the money to invest and save?

 

[haymarket]

This coming from the same person who gets offended when anyone blames Clinton for the Bush era problems... The Bush tax cuts are now Obama's Tax cuts. Deal with the current events not historical one's to deflect...

http://politisite.com/2010/12/17/mo...ans-passes-house-goes-to-obama-for-signature/

More Democrats voted for Bush Tax Cuts than Republicans: Passes House 277 to 148, Goes to Obama for Signature


Why would the DEMOCRATS want to continue a situation where 47% of income earners paid no federal income tax?

YOu need to go back and read my post again. I clearly stated I was talking about the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. You were talking about the extension of those. I objected to that also. And we have certainly felt the sting of the original Bush cuts but the extensions have just recently taken effect. To compare the two in their impact as of today is ludicrous and deceitful.

to answer your question - they never should have.

As to your slur against me about Clinton and Bush,,,, back it up with proof please. Or man up and retract that falsehood.

 

[Dickieboy]

Which invites the question: how does one acquire wealth if not through income?

Theft!!!!!

 

[Missed AB]

and where does one get the money to invest and save?

So you agree that invested money should not be taxed again when it is drawn off of?

This money was taxed both on the corporate side, and on the individuals original income side.

YOu need to go back and read my post again. I clearly stated I was talking about the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.

You need to go back to my post and read it where I clearly stated we need to look at the present and stop living in the past. The current tax laws on the books are now OBAMA's TAX CUTS, a carry over from the BUSH TAX CUTS.

You were talking about the extension of those. I objected to that also.

Your objection is noted, and I really don't care if you object to the fact DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR THE CURRENT TAX LAWS! They had the chance to restore them to the historic levels and they choose not to... Why is that?

And we have certainly felt the sting of the original Bush cuts but the extensions have just recently taken effect. To compare the two in their impact as of today is ludicrous and deceitful.

Fact: Democrats voted for the OBAMA TAX CUTS.

There is nothing decietful about comparing the 2. They are the SAME THING! YOUR ARE BEING DECEITFUL AND YOUR ASSERTION THERE IS ANY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IS LUDICROUS!

to answer your question - they never should have.

Reading Is Fundamental

I asked: WHY DID THEY VOTE FOR THEM?

You are being very dishonest in your answering a question I did not ask.

As to your slur against me about Clinton and Bush,,,, back it up with proof please. Or man up and retract that falsehood

So you agree that Bush was handed the financial mess from Clinton? That the Clinton era policies that made home ownership a bit too easy and ultimately lead to the housing bubble, bust, and financial crisis.






As to your slur against me about Clinton and Bush,,,, back it up with proof please. Or man up and retract that falsehood.[/QUOTE]

 

[imagep]

Reading Is FundamentalSo it CAN be done then. The RULE is because people spend more than then NEED to spend and WASTE money. Stop assuming ALL people earning 50k/year will forever be poor. It is a fallacy.

Instead of investing in new expensive cars as was suggested in the mock budget, if the person makes the priority of investing 100/week into the stock market which has averaged yearly returns of apx 10% over the past century (for those who doubt the returns and have yet to fully grasp how search engines work... Financial Physics - Understanding the Stock Market), that 100/week over the 35 years of working - age 25 to 60, will turn into 1.5 million dollars.

Because people like you tell them it can't happen through savings.

I suppose you think the person who is use to spending 48 million a year will suddenly be able to get by on a mere 1 million a year?

This person would retire in 10 years with 34 M in the bank. LESS THAN WHAT HE SPENDS IN THE AVERAGE YEAR!

This person would retire with apx 25 million in the bank, with the ability to save!... But the game is not to be the richest, it's just to be rich. And this is exactly my point: DON'T SPEND ON STUFF YOU DON'T NEED AND YOU CAN BE RICH! Thank you for proving my point.

.

I've never been able to conclude that the average income earner can "retire rich" when I use realistic numbers.

First of all, a million dollar net worth today is no where near rich. Second, a million dollar net worth 30 years from now will certainly not be rich.

And look at the numbers in your article. They are making the assumption that you can recieve 4% in dividends on top of 6% increase in value. I seriously doubt if that is doable these days. See, the chart is based on the p/e at back in 1950 being 7.2% and ending p/e 54 years later being 3 times that. I really wouldn't assume that to be an accurate prediction of investments made today.

Be realistic and run the numbers with a conservative estimate. Try 40 years of investing $100/week at 2%/year over inflation (which automatically adjusts for inflation). I come up with a grand total lifetime savings of $73,000. Thats not exactly rich.

So how much would one have to save to actually become rich? Probably around seven thousand dollars a month for 30 years at two percent over inflation. Now seeing how that is nearly double the median after tax income, not too many of us middle classers will likely ever be rich.

Of course that is from a reasonably safe portfolio of passive investments.

One who actively manages investmensts, such as a slumlord, or business owner can do a little better.

 

[imagep]

Which invites the question: how does one acquire wealth if not through income?

Wealth is only acquired by income.

Investment profits, lottery winnings, lawsuit winnings, insurance proceeds, theft, inheritance, gifts, etc, are all forms of income.

 

[Missed AB]

First of all, a million dollar net worth today is no where near rich. Second, a million dollar net worth 30 years from now will certainly not be rich.

Then you would also agree that someone investing 100/week today would probably not be investing 100/week in year 39 of your example. If one is to keep up with inflation, then the initial investment must also keep up with inflation - negating your claims.

I've never been able to conclude that the average income earner can "retire rich" when I use realistic numbers.

What is "Rich" to you? 1.5M inflation adjusted for 40 years would be apx 3.5M assuming 2% inflation. At 65 one should not have home loans, student loans, dependents...

They are making the assumption that you can recieve 4% in dividends on top of 6% increase in value. I seriously doubt if that is doable these days.

That's why it's a CENTURY average. The lows of 2009 to recent is about a 90% return. That's why one of the few tried and true investments styles is dollar cost averaging.

See, the chart is based on the p/e at back in 1950 being 7.2% and ending p/e 54 years later being 3 times that. I really wouldn't assume that to be an accurate prediction of investments made today.

What was PE in March 2009? Dollar cost average ensures buying fewer shares when they are expensive, and more when they are cheap. By 1959 PE was apx 20...

Be realistic and run the numbers with a conservative estimate. Try 40 years of investing $100/week at 2%/year over inflation (which automatically adjusts for inflation). I come up with a grand total lifetime savings of $73,000. Thats not exactly rich.

Your math is suspect at best.

DIA tracks the Dow average. Pays dividends monthly. Invest 5200/year @ 2% compounded x 40 years = 319k

5200 x 40 years is over 200k....

 

[Karl]

actually subsidizing dependency has dramatically increased it. and when the dem party benefits by having lots of voters dependent on the federal government, that only encourages the creation of more dependents

So, people who cannot survive on their own, for whatever reason, should be left to die?

Given that poor people tend to vote Democratic, I can see why Republicans would champion their demise.

 

[Karl]

The issue as I see it is 50% of the population pays no federal income tax. [...]

Yes, but your premise is a lie by omission (since they pay other taxes, which constitute at least half of all taxes paid by all people).

A lie that is getting really, really old. Can we have anything but recycled talking points? Please?

 

[Karl]

Which invites the question: how does one acquire wealth if not through income?

According to 60 Minutes, become a congressman

 

[Karl]

[...] The Bush tax cuts are now Obama's Tax cuts. [...]

In part because the Republicans would not allow the tax cuts for the upper tier to expire.

However, I do agree that Obama failed by not letting all the Bush tax cuts expire, despite the risk to the economy (which the Republicans are determined to destroy anyway, at least in the short term, for partisan political gain).

 

[TurtleDude]

Which invites the question: how does one acquire wealth if not through income?

that has no relevance to my point that taxes are based on income not wealth. Many forms of wealth are not income producing. Do you think it is useful to tax someone on wealth that they have already paid income taxes on the moneys they use to purchase wealth and then constantly tax them for the "privilege" of ownership of that wealth? In other words if I make 200K and pay say 40K in income taxes on that income and From that 160K left over I buy a 60K painting should I pay a tax each year on that painting? that would be a tax on wealth

 

[TurtleDude]

So, people who cannot survive on their own, for whatever reason, should be left to die?

Given that poor people tend to vote Democratic, I can see why Republicans would champion their demise.

less subsidization of sloth means less sloths

 

[TurtleDude]

Your repeated whipping boy - the Democratic Party - was NOT responsible for the demonized 47% who you like to trot out so often as dependent on the largesse of the federal government. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 created that numerical increase to those high levels. Bush was a Republican President - not a Democrat. In addition, a review of both the tax cut laws will tell you that 93% of the YES votes to pass the bills were provided by Republican members of Congress. Only 7% came from Democrats.

So may want to ask you self why oh why would the Republicans want to create a situation where 47% of income earners paid no federal income tax?

the democrats are the ones who have mainly subsidized sloth and dependency

 

[Karl]

less subsidization of sloth means less sloths

Ah. The dehumanization of the lower class. I think that story ends with one-way train tickets, does it not?

 

[Missed AB]

In part because the Republicans would not allow the tax cuts for the upper tier to expire.

However, I do agree that Obama failed by not letting all the Bush tax cuts expire, despite the risk to the economy (which the Republicans are determined to destroy anyway, at least in the short term, for partisan political gain).

It has NOTHING to do with republicans. He signed it. The president has this thing called VETO power. There was NO 2/3rds super majority. AND MORE DEMS VOTED FOR IT THAN REPUBLICANS!

HE CHOSE TO CONTINUE THE TAX CUTS!

Yes, but your premise is a lie by omission (since they pay other taxes, which constitute at least half of all taxes paid by all people).

A lie that is getting really, really old. Can we have anything but recycled talking points? Please?

Talk about lies... site a creditable source that shows the lower 50% of the population pays more than 50% of all collected taxes.

50% of the population pays no federal income tax. If it's getting old for you, think how I feel! For you it's just words. For me it's MY MONEY that's being taken so my neighbor who earns 50K can NOT pay federal income tax.

The easiest way for people to stop discussing this "talking point" is to have more people ante up into the FICA tax pot.

Ah. The dehumanization of the lower class. I think that story ends with one-way train tickets, does it not?

Since when is the lower class the bottom 50%?

 

[TurtleDude]

Ah. The dehumanization of the lower class. I think that story ends with one-way train tickets, does it not?

why do you divert what I said? we subsidize dependency and thus we get people who are dependent on government handouts who should not be sucking on the public teat.

 

[imagep]

Your math is suspect at best.

DIA tracks the Dow average. Pays dividends monthly. Invest 5200/year @ 2% compounded x 40 years = 319k

5200 x 40 years is over 200k....

OK, I might not have figured that right, but still, 319k isn't rich. Maybe 15 times that. How many of the 99% do you know that can save/invest $1500 per week?

 

[Missed AB]

So, people who cannot survive on their own, for whatever reason, should be left to die?

Given that poor people tend to vote Democratic, I can see why Republicans would champion their demise.

Explain the slippery slope where someone who makes less than 45K/year will die because they do not make enough money?

You fear the poor will not be able to put food on the table. What socio demographic is immune to substance addiction? I ask this because when you find a group that is unable to buy beer, cigarettes, pot ect, then that group runs the risk of starving.

As people alter their priorities, they will then have a greater chance of not needing hand-outs. Living within one's means and not over extending. If you can't survive without handouts then you are not living within your means.

 

[Karl]

It has NOTHING to do with republicans. He signed it. The president has this thing called VETO power. There was NO 2/3rds super majority. AND MORE DEMS VOTED FOR IT THAN REPUBLICANS!

HE CHOSE TO CONTINUE THE TAX CUTS!

So, your argument is that Obama would have extended the tax cuts for the upper class ($250K+) even if the Republicans had not insisted on it by threatening a filibuster? (which has nothing to do with 2/3rds, BTW).

But yes, rather than punish the middle class for the Republican insistence on coddling the rich, Obama did indeed cave and allow the Republicans -- and the rich -- to have their way.

Congressional Democrats offered two attempts to extend the Bush-era rates for "middle income" families but restore the previous, higher rates for "high income" people. The first proposal had a cutoff at $250,000, while the second raised the dividing line to $1 million. Both proposals were able to pass in the House, but on December 4, 2010, both fell short in the Senate, getting only 53 votes and not the 60 needed for cloture.[SUP][32][/SUP]

Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Republicans united in the Senate to block a $3.2 trillion dollar tax cut today, stopping consideration of an extension of tax rates for every worker in America on the first $250,000 of income.

Senate GOP Blocks Consideration of Tax Plan Extending Rates on First $250K and First $1M | FDL News Desk

 

[Karl]

Talk about lies... site a creditable source that shows the lower 50% of the population pays more than 50% of all collected taxes.

Since that is a rather insane challenge related to absolutely nothing I have posted, no, I don't think I will