Common sense kills this whole idea, since the last time I checked you can spend whatever money you want on whatever cause you want. It's even better when private citizens do it since it cuts out the wasteful gvmt middleman who takes .50 cents out of every dollar to run the bloated bureaucracy it is. It's all typical smoke and mirrors to try for the typical gvmt control over lives and money
What about social security? The federal government recives 51% percent of it's income from social security taxes, wich the the rich pay less of. And before you say it's a benifit or a savings plan then if it's so wonderfull let's allow the rich to pay 10% or so of thier income into it too.
rather than attacking the rich and corporations and businesses, why dont democrats attack the most rich, corrupt, inefficient institution on the planet? The US government
@ChibiabosWolf Your percentages are WAY off. I'm assuming your "wealthiest 10% pay less than 18%" in taxes refers to the progressive income tax--which has nothing to do with wealth. It's an INCOME tax--a tax on income, not wealth. On the other hand, the facts are VERY clear: the top 10% of income earners in the US in 2008 paid in over 70% of all the income taxes collected; the bottom 50 (yes fifty)%: paid in 2.7% of all taxes collected! Who is paying MORE than the fair share??
I am a conservative but this guy is being dishonest. He compared the percentage of one group's income to be taxed, to the percentage of tax revenue made up of the other group's taxes, and purposely made it sound like a more direct comparison than it was. It's an unprincipled, and unsound way to persuade the public, to rely on lies, especially when the truth is on your side.
The thing people don't get is that taxing the rich won't do anything. If we took every single dollar from the top 400 billionaires we would still have a budget deficit of 300 billion dollars. That just for this year. We have a spending problem people. Cut the wars, find wasteful spending and cut some departments and regulations. Then we can work on entitlements which are completely out of control. Our government has become a monster and we need to stop feeding it. Starve the beast!!!!!
@skeptictom818 what you said exactly, people keep blaming the tax cuts but ignoring that revenues never really changed much, spending however did.. why do we keep treating revenues like the cure when the spending is the disease?
@jkessler410 Patently false. Revenues have hugely collapsed. When we're down to throwing seniors off Medicare, closing mental health hospitals and laying off teachers while our infrastructure is crumbling and 45,000 Americans die every single year due to a lack of health coverage yet we've pared down taxes on the wealthiest 10% of Americans to less than 18% while the middle class pay above 30%, the issue is not too much spending.
@ChibiabosWolf Everything you just said is total BS, the Revenue numbers are easy enough to look up, we had a dip of less than 200 Million at first and it rose right back beyond the original amount, Spending however has doubled, infrastructure crumbling? really? you're an idiot. Hey I bet you bring up that wikipedia chart about the bridge collapses that I'll debunk in 5 seconds time like every other dolt who thinks exactly like you has done. And people don't die from no insurance moron.
@ChibiabosWolf And let me add to the last bit of idiocy, Middle class do not pay 30% federal income tax, Rich do not pay 15%, 15% is capital gains tax, meaning the rich pay additional tax on earnings they make on money they already paid income tax on long ago.. the issue with your entire ideology is you lack critical thinking and have no desire to actually analyze the rhetoric you spit out.
@skeptictom818 45,000 Americans die every single year due to a lack of health care, cutbacks have already resulted in the closure of mental health facilities and the layoffs of teachers and class sizes are skyrocketting again. The bulk of wealth has been transferred from the masses to the few wealthy, and the cost is high. Its well past time to ask those who have taken so much from so many to pay a small amount to alleviate the damage their greed has caused.
@ChibiabosWolf So what you're saying is that 0.015% of Americans die each year because of lack of health care. That sounds like an amazing success to me.
@pretorious700 (part 2) And corporations are NOT being "priced out" by labor unions and collective bargaining. That's batshit. Corporate profits have NEVER been as high as they are now. Never. Meanwhile the middle class is broke. The wealth is too lopsidedly allocated for the collective society to function much less prosper.
BTW, I've only encountered this degree of stupidity from Americans. You're in Thailand? Well do some research on wealth inequality. Should be enlightening.
Lets say that you have 10 kids and you earn one million dollars a year- since you have all those mouths to feed and butts to wipe, are you still considered wealthy?? I would think NOT!!!
@itachi705 Who on earth told you "taxes have risen"? They quite obviously haven't.
And companies don't outsource jobs because their taxes are too high. They do it because that's where the money is in the first place. They take advantage of poor people oversees who are forced to work longer hours for less pay. THEN they are encouraged to keep money oversees until the next tax holiday (much LOWER taxes).
@NiNj4xNUTZz Sorry, but your comprehension is all wrong. People overseas are not "forced to work longer hours for less pay" by comparative standards. They are happy to have work and their lower costs of living justify their wages. Also the fact that labor unions and collective bargaining has priced out competitive wages in the US. You are a typical brainwashed liberal.
@pretorious700 I'm not a liberal, friendo. Lets not judge each other based on less than 500 characters of text. It's not an effective way of getting at the truth.
--"their lower costs of living justify their wages."
Precisely (from the purview of economic consequentialism). Their conditions of living *force* them to accept crappy jobs that pay shit. Are you telling me that's FAIR? So the fact that they already live in 3rd world conditions (morally) justifies their wages?
@butsgalore Warren Buffet Pays millions upon millions of dollars in taxes. Yes, he pays more than his fair share and he pays magnitudes more than his secretary.
Warren Buffet actually recently came out and fought against "coddling" the super-rich. He admits to paying a lower percentage of taxes than the average person. This video contains true information, but it leaves out other important information. If the top 1% pays for 19% of the overall taxes, it could be because they earn 19% of all the money on the country. This means the taxes are fair.
Depends on what taxes you are talking about. Let's talk about STRICTLY the federal level taxes, the top 1% in the united states tax bracket is only 35%. Even then, you can't actually hit 35% taxes, because our taxes are indexed, so by the time you reach the top tax bracket you will only have paid about 29.02% in taxes, even though the second highest tax bracket is 33%. Also, the US census says the top 1% make closer to 40% of the income. Sources are all .gov sites.
The top five percent own and control more than eighty percent of total wealth.... Twenty seven percent seems far to low. Apologists for oligarchs make me sick.
Are Hilary and Barack willing to pay their "fair share"? Just wondering, considering Obama's standard for "enough" is 200k when the POTUS makes roughly 400k.
P.S. There's a section for "donation" on the IRS forms, so any volunteers can choose to give more to Uncle Sam if they want. Like Warren Buffet, who proclaimed taxes needed to be raised on the "rich" but according to Forbes, only decided to pay 19%. Something smells a bit fishy. Just sayin'.
@pseudoprodigy This Republican trickle down experiment has failed. The debate is over. It's time to turn around and face the real enemy that's been fucking us in the assholes for the last 50 years. Greed is the problem. Not taxes.
@pseudoprodigy --"Raise the taxes and watch the rich leave with all the remaining private sector jobs to a place less taxed and regulated."
Oh please. The rich haven't paid this little in taxes in over 60 years. In any case, that's EXACTLY what they're doing already! They outsource jobs and wait for tax holidays to bring the profits back so that they'll only pay 5%. Instead of investing in domestic sourcing (which WOULD create jobs), they pay the savings out to themselves in dividends.
The thing is, Nick Gillespie, that even though the richest 1% of the American population pay such and such a percent of their income into taxes..... That 1% are so unfairly and rediculously rich, that a tiny sliver of their outrageous income would be enough to sustain a luxurious lifestyle. I mean if you make seventy five million dollars a year, say - like Ray R. Irani, of Occidental Petrolium, you could be paying 75% income tax, helping pay for much needed social programs, and be living fine.
@GatesYardley You don't know your facts. Obama's budget for F2011 is $3.7 trillion, that's 10 BILLION DOLLARS PER DAY!!!! There isn't enough wealth in all of the US to sustain that kind of spending year after year even if you take everything from every wealthy person and corporation in America. Search youtube for a video called "eat the rich". See if you still believe what you believe after you watch that video.
@GatesYardley Private charities and private sector investments are more efficient and do a better job of relieving the poor and misery than any social program or government can throw at them. Jobs don't come from government. You want to help the poor while they're poor instead of stopping them from being poor. What you are advocating would make the poor much poorer and the rich a little less rich. The last thing we need are more inefficient wasteful social programs
@AroundSun What... I'm not saying anything about getting the poor jobs, or anything about jobs for that matter. All I'm saying is if you have a million billion dollars in the fucking bank, your an asshole and you should share it.
@GatesYardley a 75% tax on producers would raise prices by almost the same amount. It would cut jobs and lower wages as well. The money has to come from somewhere. So the money taken from the producer is given to the consumer only to pay a higher price? It defeats the purpose.The money never really ends up in the hands of the people either so the price difference wouldn't even equal out. I don't think people receiving free money are really in need of more free money, they need jobs to produce.
@GatesYardley People can't hoard their income either. They either invest it, spend it, or keep it in banks which lowers interest rates. Most of that 75% would be in the hands of the people who put the politicians in office and would be subject to 4th category spending. We literally have the highest CMR in the WORLD. Besides, gov't always collects 18% of GDP whether taxes are high or low. Our entitlement and social programs are beyond bankrupt as it is. We need to CUT TAXES and STOP SPENDING
@GatesYardley STEAL money from RICH people.Ok, first someone has to decide what and who is rich. Then, you are going to have to use the govt to take their money.When taxes go up, the government actually collects LESS tax revenues. Also, where in the constitution does it say that you may steal from some to give to others? NOWHERE. rich people already pay the lions share in taxes and as it goes up so will prices.Keep voting for people like hillary tho who lie, tell you otherwise to get your vote
@Orionx30 Listen, if you want to look at it like a capitalist, consider yourself like a manager of a store or something. You have one employee that's in charge of investing 25% of all your resources, and another 99 employees in charge of investing the rest. Each employee can only actually make practical use of 5% of your cash [By this I mean, everyone in the richest 1% of say, americans, couldn't spend the amount of money they have in one lifetime if they tried, so they can't......
@Orionx30 Can't practically ever use that resource, so the analogy, your one employee only on one computer cant even handle the number of accounts required to invest that resource]) now the other 75% of the resources can effectively be handled by fifteen fully functioning employees. That leaves you with 84 completely useless dead weight guys in your store, fifteen that are doing fine, and one that is tying up all your fucking resources, but not working accounts with them. Why Not MANAGE.....
@Orionx30 .....Some of those resources across to the other employees, if you spread it evenly, each employee only really has to do 20% of what is considered a full workload [5% resources] in order for all of your capital to be working accounts, and for all of your employees to earn their keep. You can't deny that the US is a sinking ship, a military industrial shithole that is either destined for anihilation, or unjust and ruthless world control by police/military force. Imagine other options.
@anthraxmm 90% of "the wealth". As if privately owned and accumulated capital is subjected to the good graces of the voting public. That whole mindset that there is "the wealth" is a zero sum game fallacy. There is no "the wealth". You don't own a share of my property or my home simply for existing. "The wealth" is a pie that GROWS. Me getting rich doesn't make you poorer but liberals are always stuck in that mindset because they are economically challenged.
hilary ,when you speak you speak for the office and the administration.no ifs or buts.you either do that or you resign.you can speak for yourself after you retire.
I only pay 36% in tax. And I'm amazed that it's not more. I would pay 40-50% without a doubt if it was forced on me. Oh, and btw, I live in Denmark, the most taxed country in the world.
Look at our debt history. We didn't have any real debt problems till Reagan. And no increasing taxes do create revenue. Thats just the way it is. Especially when you put the tax burden on billionaires. Putting it at 90% isn't necessarily to generate more revenues. Which it does, but its to keep the money out of the hands of the few. Its quit simply ECONOMIC CHECKS AND BALANCES. Something we desperately need in the country. I agree. We do need to make serious cuts though!!
@Healing6arts9 It’s clear you have no idea how the economy works. Nor the fact that billionaires can pick up their money and move it elsewhere. Why the hell should anyone have to pay 90% of their income to the government? Do you really think its ok to take someone’s assets just because you think they have too much?
Most rich people only pay a 15% capital gains tax! If you look at every statistic since Regan cut the top tax braces in half, wages have stagnated, the middle class has shrunk, the gap between rich and poor has grown so far apart that the U.S. is ranked dead last in income distribution in the world! Our debt has gone through the roof. Roll back the Regan tax cuts!!!!!!
@Healing6arts9 That depends entirely on which groups you are considering "rich." If you are talking about billionaires, then I agree with you that they generally are not paying as much as a percentage of earnings as other income groups. But the vast majority of people who make, for example, $100k to $200k per year do not do so through investments. Most of them are entrepreneurs, doctors, lawyers, executives... etc. These people are "rich" but certainly pay more than 15%.
I think we need to create a new tax bracket at 1million. then another at 10 million
And we need to make a the capital gains part of the income tax or make it progressive. 100k or 200k are really just middle class now because of how high inflation is. Its a crime to have the tax bracket stop at 250k..... This effectively makes our tax system regressive not progressive
vengeful, I think you're misunderstanding the facts in the video. The top 1% of earners earn 19% of the nation's income and pay 26% of the nation's taxes.
However, the real problem here isn't who's paying how much in taxes, it's the fact that tax money is going towards bailing out failing corporations, propping up foreign dictators, and lining the pockets of the people who line our politicians' pockets.
@anoncastillo You have nailed the problem anoncastillo. I am amazed by how many people want the other guy to pay more and think it's ok to put their hand in someone else’s pocket to pay for their own interests. How many of you are willing to reach in your own pocket and put more money on the table?
too bad even thou they pay 26% of the taxes, they own about 80% of the income. so therefore logic should state that since they earn 80% of the income, they should be paying 80% of the taxes.
@vengefulspirit99 the 26% figure was not the percentage of total taxes collected from the government from the richest quintile, it was the richest quintiles average tax rate. So if you make 200,000 you pay on average 52,000. Their total share of the nations income was 55.7% according to the CBO.
This guy isn't mentioning that Dubya signed a law during his last term that lets the top 2% pay their entire incomes at the 15% capitol gains rate, meaning that Ms Clinton is indeed correct and the income tax rate is a non-issue. He's not lying, and yet he is not telling the truth. A very shrewd bit of propaganda for sure.
Yeah! Screw those evil rich people! That money that they earn as a result of capital enterprise, investment and risk doesn't belong to them, they're not working for it! It belongs to us, the little people, the folks. Take their money and give me social programs, services and tax credits! I'm tired of being a shill for the wealthy! Yeah!
Hey, by the way any of you "poor little folk" hiring because I'm looking for a job?
@magicpoliceman The "rich" is one thing, what needs to be done is to kill off the bankers. You know, murder them. The "rich" are nothing but pretty dressed puppets for the truly powerful. But dont you worry.
Its coming. The heat is going to be turned up, and no lies, no deception, no words will help in the end. :D
Extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich only would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit in 2011. If the Bush Tax Cuts expire the overall federal tax rate for the rich would jump to about 29.9%, compared with 24.6% if all the tax cuts were extended.
Washington Post
Study: Bush Tax Cuts Cost More Than Twice As Much As Health-Care Bill
@NewsPoliticsInfo First: The Top rate would go to 39.6 not 29.6..so you're quite a bit off. Second: Obamacare is estimated to cost 1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Based on your quote above "Extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich only would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit in 2011" 36 Billion a year over 10 years is 360 Billion. Explain to us how 360 Billion is More than 1.5 Trillion? You're only off by about 450% I guess math wasn't your strong suit in high school?
@jonkabbash amazing how your post was flagged as spam when you smashed the deficit argument. Once again the the "liberal" progressive socialist left shows it's true colors and their "free speech for me, but not for thee!" attitude. They hate when you break their argument.
wouldnt like a regular household that maybe makes like 250k (i dont know i dont own a house) pay 65k if its 26% and then someone who makes 750k that pays the same % pay 195k. So isnt it kind of fair? im kind of in the middle of the fence on this one
@Iplayphone It's not a flat tax - so no, they don't pay the same percentage. And the way the tax laws are written you pay more of a percentage of your income in taxes when you make more, UNTIL you make a LLOOTT more - then you start paying LESS. So people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year pay a bigger percentage than people making millions of dollars - and people making millions of dollars a year are paying more of a percentage of their income in taxes than BILLIONAIRES ARE.
@Iplayphone google or search on youtube "warren buffett taxes secretary" - then watch the video. Billionaires pay less of a percentage of their income than upper middle class people do.
Why is it that Warren Buffet - the second richest man in the US - pays 17% of his income in federal taxes, but his secretary, who makes a FRACTION of what he makes pays 33% of her income in federal taxes?
THE FACT IS that the upper middle class pays A LOT MORE of a percentage of their income in taxes than do billionaires - and there is NO WAY to justify that.
More LIES and misleading information from reason.tv
You just PROVED that the rich DO NOT pay their fair share of taxes: "The top 1% of households earn 19% of all income but paid over 28% of all federal taxes"
The top 1% earn 19% of all income!!!
Do you know HOW MUCH 19% of all income is?
And by the way, the top 1% earn WWAAYY more than 19% of all income now.
We should rewrite the tax code, plain and simple. Most of the wealthy simply find way to offset whatever increase will come. Historically, the Government gains LESS taxes when they increase them. It's a matter of efficiency, period.
it's a shell game. it's the same game they pulled when the income tax came up for vote in the constitution to begin with. it wasn't even intended to be hoisted on the poor, but the rich campaigned to get the poor behind it, then switched it around to apply to everyone at the last minute. this is exactly the game that's being played now. Warren buffet, clinton, saying how the "rich", which they are a part of, aren't paying their fair share. Guaranteed they itemize every year. DO YOU?
The current top tax rate is 35%. It was 31% when President Clinton took office and asked the wealthy to make a "temporary sacrifice". At that time the top rate was moved to 39.6%. This was designed to help bring our deficit under control. After 4 successive surpluses, President Bush proposed a partial rollback of the top rate. This was protested by the liberals as unfairly giving tax breaks to the wealthy. But the wealthy were the ones who had their rates increased! How long is temporary?
the clintons can't talk. the foundation they started last decade has helped shelter over 6 million dollars. which is fine, they have every right to keep their money away from the gov't by legal means. but don't try to trash the rich for not paying enough taxes when you do everything you can to avoid paying them yourself.
by the way, just why is it fair to make any one person pay more of a share of their income than another based on who makes more?
All that has been done for the good of all will turn to evil. I say reduce government and then reduce taxes. Vote in November and keep the Faith.The nation is broken and needs fixing, Buy we the people.A government that uses race as a tool in a country of many races will fail we are Americans and we need to remember why we came here. treat all fair then we can be proud for we are a nation under God.Is this the best we can do how have you improved life for others today Evil is when God is missing
If it is that much of an issue for the rich to be paying all those "high taxes," i have a solution; we can trade places, give me all your weath and belongings, and then you can have all i have. We will just completely switch, you will acquire my good looks and i will get all your money, property, and all of your taxes as well. Then after you have lived my life for a while then tell me how much you want to return to paying those high taxes again.
@eimajism "Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.-- Joseph Sobran
@FreeAgain2 The incomes of the top 1/10th of 1% grew by 94% between 2002 and 2007. Yours and mine grew by about 4%.
You have to consider which way the money is flowing, for the past 30 yrs it's been flowing to the top. You tax income, the rich have been getting richer, so the taxes have to "follow the money"
Trust me, the top 1% look at us, the way we look at homeless people. Except they have no compassion or empathy. They laugh at our $100k homes.
the rich have earned their money with their own hard work. It's their money!!! and nobody should have a say in what they do with it other then them. you say taking some of it wont hurt them? too fucking bad! you can't have it.
@boonie1994 actually a lot of people are born into money and are afraid of it being taken away. Even those who earn it tend to earn it at the direct expense of others. In order for the rich to stay rich the poor must stay poor. (I am not poor, I am one of the top 19% but I pay my taxes and don't bitch about it) People are all so greedy.
@nosnhoj1987 well of course there are a few people who get it at the expense of others, but that shouldn't affect the majority! and im not saying that the rich should stay rich, just that the government shouldn't be making them poor. and poor people can get rich if they put in the effort. The governments job should be to protect the rights of the people and nothing else.
@boonie1994 in theory that's all good but we both know the world doesn't work that way. I agree that the government shouldn't be taking our money but at the moment there is very little we can do about it unless we have investments and pull in the government's parties. If there is ever a serious revolution by the citizens in this country I will, without hesitation, pick up a pitchfork and torch and march to DC with everyone else.
This dickhead is a 'useful idiot' for the corporate aristocracy.
The super rich paid 3 times more than they pay today for most of the 20th cent. It didn't hurt their life style, the entrepreneurial spirit thrived, and the country paid down the humongous debt from WWII.
@twosquirrelly I am not a supply-sider, but I think that it is obvious that marginal tax rates have a profound impact upon an individual's economic decisions. If you think that confiscating 90% of income from people who work their tails off will inspire more people to work their tales off, you're fooling yourself.
The fiscal situation in '45 was markedly different from now. All the US had to do was cut military spending. Presently, we face longterm runaway entitlement costs.
The vast majority of the income of the wealthiest individuals comes from investment income, which is a product of COLLECTIVE wealth -- wealth created by thousands/millions of people which is transferred to the elite.
Stop being such a shill for the "monied aristocracy"-- they're laughing at you.
@AnonymousPundit and it's "quite telling" that your response is the typical straw man argument. Again, the rich make most of their money in investments and capital gains. Both are considered "PASSIVE INCOME" as opposed to earned income...you know, where you "work your ass off" for a paycheck.
"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor."
"1. deferred consumption and thrift BY INDIVIDUALS." Say's law... Problem is that's bullshit and has been proven bullshit. Banks having ~5% of GDP make 50% of all annual profits. There is plenty of capital out there, it's just goes to into 'riccardian rent' driving asset bubbles.
2. Growing up requires regular shitting, but taking laxatives won't help you break into the NBA.
3. Not really, though I agree tax economic rent and plutocracy rather than productivity.
Wow morons. Way to completely misrepresent the argument. The "Tax the Rich" mantra has very little to do with the average percentage of income paid to taxes. It's about relative percentages paid. To someone who is very very poor a 5% income tax would hurt a lot more than a 50% income tax on a billionaire. Also, another argument has to do with tax loopholes used by the rich to evade taxes. Greece's problem wasn't a spending problem. The problem is that the rich didn't pay their taxes.
@b2tama when the US entered WWII, FDR decided that no one was going to get rich from going to war. The tax rate was hiked up to something like 90% for the rich and it stayed there until the 60s. We should go back to those tax brackets until the debt is paid off.
I don't know if they 'pay their fair share' but I do know that the government always errs on the side of the hyper wealthy. By rich Hillary probably means the middle class, not the crazy CEO billionaires that I mean by hyper wealthy, the top 1% of the country that owns 96% of the wealth that our government so wonderfully ensures are given no competition and does everything in their power to destroy the middle class, widening the gulf between the poor and the rich. Plutocracy.
Hillary clinton is a scum bag just like her husband. She should be in jail for more than just White Water, what about Vince Foster? That cunt had him killed.
Interesting fact about what happens when you target the "rich" with taxes, the Federal Gov't taxed long distance phone calls to pay for the Spanish American War. ( 1898) because at the time only RICH people had phones, of course the Feds forgot to rescind the tax, and EVERYONE paid that tax until 2006 when it was finally repealed.
@MrJeggus He paid less percentage. Thats because his secretary paid income tax AND FICA tax, on every dime of what she earned. Buffet doesn''t pay FICA on 99.9999 % of his income. Plus, most of his income is cap gains, which has a very low rate. So, no FICA + a low rate = modest percentage. His secretary FICA + high rate = high percentage.
@SteamboatCamp I'm beginning to like you. You are like belligerent foul mouthed Dr. Watson. Continually wrong but you do give others the opportunity to logically dissect all you errors. You are my praxiological aid. :)
Why the fuck do you think Buffet said he paid lower tax rates than his secretary? Dumb ass -- its because his gain is capital gains -- maxed at 15%, with no FICA. His secretary could pay 30%, PLUS FICA.
If you know of a different reason, share it, or shut the fuck up
According to Buffet, the reason he paid less than his secretary is that his accountants were able to find ways to make most of his income non-taxable, or offset the taxes through the use of special exceptions in the taxcode.
@SteamboatCamp BTW I don't particularly like the FT that is why I didn't bring reference it as a good example of a consumption tax, YOU did that, but your critiques have been terrible and superficial. If you want a some good logical critiques try reading some of these:
@bullpcp Are you fucking insane? I pointed out that FT is a pile of shit - that it's own leaders don't dare have hearings on it, that it's based on layers of absurdities, and that their leaders fucking KNOW it. How the FUCK can that by "superficial" you fucking moron. How fucking stupid can you get without pulling shit out of your brain? Now, I may be wrong on that (Im not) but it sure as FUCK is not superficial you fucking idiot.
@SteamboatCamp Hahaha you are a funny little man :D ad hominem attack, ad hominem attack, pointless comment. Most of your arguments against FT are not strong arguments against FT. For instance it is not politically viable, so what that is completely irrelevant to the functionality of the policy, how about the percent of a revenue nuetral sales tax being too high, so what you are already paying the same amount in a different form, ect. these are some weak ass irrelevant arguments against FT.
Bull sorry dumb fuck -- I pay about 8% of my income to federal taxes. I don't pay anything close to 30%, so no dumb fuck, its not the same amount in different form.
FT is not "politically viable" because the fucking con artist that head it up, know its pure bullshit, and would avoid hearings under oath like the fucking clap. My point is -- its a FUCKING FARCE -- their leaders KNOW its a farce, and they depend on really stupid fucks not to notice.
@SteamboatCamp I'm not going to give you as much credit as before and assume you know this but you can disagree on the particulars and still agree on the final assessment. This means I can DISAGREE with your arguments against FT even as I agree that it is in your own words a "piece of shit" this is called making a balanced, as opposed to bipolar, assessment of a policy. The world is not black and white, whole good or bad, that is except in simple angry little minds.
What particulars do you think FT has? Its a farce dumb ass. Its a magic wand they pretend to stick up your ass, so you shit gold. They know it doesn't work. They know it's a hoax. They know they have NO research. They know they aren't about to have hearings about it under oath.
This plan is a FARCE --its own leaders know it, it's not a real tax plan.
@SteamboatCamp Leaders didn't have hearings on alleged voter fraud but spent over twenty minutes on which college teams they were going to recognize. This is another of your arguments that is almost completely without merit, in other words weak. I have faith that you have the potential to grow out of your emotional tantrums, that you are not just trolling the boards, if people give you logical constructive criticism unless you are perfect maybe you should consider their merits.
Bull -- wait dumb fuck -- so they have no "research" they have no support from corporations, they avoid hearings under oath for 13 years, real studies have shown its nonsense, but they "spent over 20 minutes" with some college kids????
Who spent 20 minutes? And what the FUCK does that prove? Fairtax is a farce, a hoax, and its own leaders know it.
@SteamboatCamp Leaders didn't have hearings on alleged voter fraud but spent over twenty minutes on which college teams they were going to recognize. This is another of your arguments that is almost completely without merit, in other words weak. I have faith that you have the potential to grow out of your emotional tantrums, that you are not just trolling the boards. If people give you logical constructive criticism unless you are perfect maybe you should consider their criticisms merits.
@SteamboatCamp Leaders didn't have hearings on alleged voter fraud but spent over twenty minutes on which college teams they were going to recognize. This is another of your arguments that is almost completely without merit, in other words weak. I have faith that you have the potential to grow out of your emotional tantrums, that you are not just trolling the boards. If people give you logical constructive criticism unless you are perfect maybe you should consider their criticisms merits.
Depends how they get the money. If you work for your money, if you own a business to get your money, you pay a tremendous amount of taxes.
What you lunatics don't seem to grasp is -- if you make the money from credit swaps, capital gains, derivities, dividends (god bless them all) you pay far less or no taxes. The best money I ever made -- and the lowest taxes -- was on cap gains.
Have everyone pay alike, no matter how they make it.
@SteamboatCamp That is why I would just as soon tax consumption instead of production as to avoid the complexities of the current tax system. And corporate or business taxes or multistage value added taxes are a nightmarish waste of time.
bullcrp -- I would just soon wave a magic wand and eat chocolate. So the fuck what?
Here is a clue. A national sales tax to replace all other taxes would be 60-90% not fucking 23%. Check out a thing called MATH.
That's my point -- FT math is bullshit, and they KNOW it. They count as income some bizzaro tax on GOVERNMENT. Got that retard? They tax shit they KNOW they can't tax. That's how the get 23%. Fuck, idiot, why not tax moonbeams, and your farts? Makes just as much sense.
@SteamboatCamp First of all you are completely wrong about the 60%-90% but even if you weren't so what. You are already paying the same amount in productivity taxes. And yes if the government bought end of point sales items they would pay taxes and it would have a geometric progression not unlike the feds required bank reserve rate on the money supply. But AGAIN even if it did take a sales tax of 60%-90% to pay the SAME taxes you are paying now SO WHAT? Maybe you comparing income to sales tax
@bullpcp Don't forget, in the US you can deduct the current sales taxes from the current income taxes. Annoying to keep all the records for, yes, but it does mean you only pay the greater of the two. Here in Canada, you get taxed earning AND spending.
@SteamboatCamp You need to heed your own advice and check out this thing called math because you must be confused by simple arithmetical or geometric progression or basic algebraic equivalencies. Again even if you were correct about the 60%-90%, and you are NOT, that would be how much you are currently paying now anyway. A 100% sales tax would be the equivalent of a 50% income tax which is approximately what we pay now when all things are considered.
bull -- wrong -- the FT llunatic BS is that it wont cost ANYTHING. Prices will FALL almost exactly as much as the tax will INCREASE. Did you know that? IN effect, dumb fuck -- a free lunch. Read the fucking book. Boortz calls it "a wash". Prices fall, the tax replaces that. Its fucking bat shit crazy you dumb fuck - -and they know it.
@SteamboatCamp Actually you are correct in that some people who support the FT do believe that prices would fall due to increased efficiency or reduced compliance costs enough to counteract the increase due to the sales tax, I'm not one. Increases in productivity and efficiency do give you the equivalent of a "free lunch" this is why we work less and get more today than 100 years ago. Compliance costs already cost many billions of dollars a year for both the income and business taxes.
@SteamboatCamp If I make $100 and pay %50 to income tax I have $50 to spend without a sales tax I simply spend the $50. If I make $100 and pay no income tax I have $100 and with a %100 sales tax I would be able to purchase $50 worth of goods and services. Thus 50% production tax is the equivalent of 100% consumption tax in this case. If you need me to explain geometric compounding I could do that also but I'm beginning to feel sorry for you, like I'm picking on you.
Bull what part of this don't you fucking grasp? NO one is trying to pass this piece of shit. NO ONE. Fairtax leaders have run like pussies from any hearing under oath. They fucking know it's totally insane.
With NO ONE even willing to have a hearing under oath, how the fuck do you think it will ever even get to committee? Much less pass, moron./
@SteamboatCamp You aren't the sharpest spoon in the drawer are you? I was comparing the taxation of production to that of consumption and YOU are the one to bring up FT. And since when did the political viability of a policy have anything to do with it's ethicacy or effectiveness. I wish I lived in a world were it mattered but it doesn't. A good idea is a good idea regardless of it's political viability.
@SteamboatCamp You never even addressed the real issue of the differences between taxing productivity versus consumption or that if the federal government gets $3+ trillion in taxes and it costs 50% in productivity taxes why it should anger you so much to shift it to a single 60%-90%-100% because even if you assume the same exact efficiency in all tax systems, an incredibly ignorant assumption on your part, you would still have the same tax burden but without the disincentives to produce.
@SteamboatCamp They used the 23% number to directly compare with production taxes specifically to avoid the type of confusion you seem to a victim of. 23% income tax is NOT the equivalent 23% sales tax. It would instead be approximately a 29.87% or round off to about 30%. But again what difference does it make? It's the same taxes all in one place so you can see how much you are paying the government. If you are angry about the high taxes don't blame FT blame government spending.
@bullpcp nonsense idiot, they used 23% to fool your dumb fucking ass. Got that.
They may as well tax moonbeams and your farts dumb fuck, as to tax the government and the poor. Got that retard? They PRETEND they will make the government the BIGGEST TAXPAYER. Did you know that you fucking retard/
They KNOW that's fucking insane, but that's how the got 23% -- its pure fucking nonsense.
@SteamboatCamp As a single entity the Government is the biggest employer and the the biggest payer of taxes NOW did you know that. That's right it's the current state of affairs. Welcome to reality :P
perotcharts com - QED. Liar hillary. YOU ARE A LIAR. The unfairness of the progressive tax system is unreal, and as middle class Im getting nailed. Its the SPENDING and ENTITLEMENTS that cause all this mess.
Communist rat vermin Hillary. I already pay MORE than a fair share. I’ve raised probably 4-5 ghetto rat families already.
Define rich – rich is all those hard working middle class folks with kids and major responsibilities that the democrats tax the living hell out of while claiming to love the middle class.
@Offenso Thank you for accepting my points graciously.
1. The Federal income tax was started in 1913.
2. The gowth that we experienced in those years was unsustainable. It led us to get rid of the gold standard to print enough money to cover our debts and led to price controls and shortages.
Remeber, both Clinton and Bush had great years of Economic growth, however, both where caused by low intrest rates that we will eventually have to pony up for.
Does anyone else ever consider what the difference is for someone that makes 30k a year and pays over 20% vs someone who makes 30 million a year and pays 30%? At some point you have so much money the only way to spend it is to buy insanely expensive things. Cry more greedy bastards.. So you only have 20 million to blow on stuff you really dont need. Compare yourself to people who struggle to pay the bills and bust their butts just to have a job. This makes me sick.
so what? if you think this kind of government spending is appropriate, then the rich ARE paying too little. taxes are better than debt.
you can always advocate less spending, but tax cuts while this spending goes on aren't something a libertarian should advocate. you end up discrediting yourself. see reagan.
@justonefirefly1 I love that the owner of the corporation makes tons of money... It lets me know that he'll have enough to pay me and still make a profit.
@ragincaucasian319 Philip Hampson "Phil" Knight the owner of Nike when asked why he has little 5 and 6 years olds working in his factory to produce these piece of shit shoes and pays them 5 cents a day while he is billionaire over and over. - and you think you dumbass that the corporation bothers to pay you when someday they will have you and your babies working for nothing you dumbass
If we got rid of crony capitalism we would more readily accept corporate CEOs salaries and the wealthiness's salaries. With no more corporate welfare people can't, somewhat justifiably complain, about the subsidies, tax breaks, other unfair advantages many corporations gain. But lets solve the problem at its source instead of treating symptoms.
This has been flagged as spam show
Common sense kills this whole idea, since the last time I checked you can spend whatever money you want on whatever cause you want. It's even better when private citizens do it since it cuts out the wasteful gvmt middleman who takes .50 cents out of every dollar to run the bloated bureaucracy it is. It's all typical smoke and mirrors to try for the typical gvmt control over lives and money
you831able 1 week ago
What about social security? The federal government recives 51% percent of it's income from social security taxes, wich the the rich pay less of. And before you say it's a benifit or a savings plan then if it's so wonderfull let's allow the rich to pay 10% or so of thier income into it too.
phookadude 1 month ago
rather than attacking the rich and corporations and businesses, why dont democrats attack the most rich, corrupt, inefficient institution on the planet? The US government
agnostaxian 3 months ago
The wealthiest 10% pay less than 18% in taxes, while the middle class pay well above 30%. You seem to be short on facts and reason.
ChibiabosWolf 5 months ago
@ChibiabosWolf Your percentages are WAY off. I'm assuming your "wealthiest 10% pay less than 18%" in taxes refers to the progressive income tax--which has nothing to do with wealth. It's an INCOME tax--a tax on income, not wealth. On the other hand, the facts are VERY clear: the top 10% of income earners in the US in 2008 paid in over 70% of all the income taxes collected; the bottom 50 (yes fifty)%: paid in 2.7% of all taxes collected! Who is paying MORE than the fair share??
paulgreenjunior 4 months ago
@ChibiabosWolf Your 30% figure is pure fiction. People in the top 25%-50% range pay less than 6% on average. The bottom 50% pay less than 2%.
PissedFechtmeister 2 months ago
I am a conservative but this guy is being dishonest. He compared the percentage of one group's income to be taxed, to the percentage of tax revenue made up of the other group's taxes, and purposely made it sound like a more direct comparison than it was. It's an unprincipled, and unsound way to persuade the public, to rely on lies, especially when the truth is on your side.
eggory 5 months ago
The thing people don't get is that taxing the rich won't do anything. If we took every single dollar from the top 400 billionaires we would still have a budget deficit of 300 billion dollars. That just for this year. We have a spending problem people. Cut the wars, find wasteful spending and cut some departments and regulations. Then we can work on entitlements which are completely out of control. Our government has become a monster and we need to stop feeding it. Starve the beast!!!!!
skeptictom818 5 months ago
@skeptictom818 what you said exactly, people keep blaming the tax cuts but ignoring that revenues never really changed much, spending however did.. why do we keep treating revenues like the cure when the spending is the disease?
jkessler410 5 months ago
@jkessler410 Patently false. Revenues have hugely collapsed. When we're down to throwing seniors off Medicare, closing mental health hospitals and laying off teachers while our infrastructure is crumbling and 45,000 Americans die every single year due to a lack of health coverage yet we've pared down taxes on the wealthiest 10% of Americans to less than 18% while the middle class pay above 30%, the issue is not too much spending.
ChibiabosWolf 5 months ago
@ChibiabosWolf Everything you just said is total BS, the Revenue numbers are easy enough to look up, we had a dip of less than 200 Million at first and it rose right back beyond the original amount, Spending however has doubled, infrastructure crumbling? really? you're an idiot. Hey I bet you bring up that wikipedia chart about the bridge collapses that I'll debunk in 5 seconds time like every other dolt who thinks exactly like you has done. And people don't die from no insurance moron.
jkessler410 5 months ago
@ChibiabosWolf And let me add to the last bit of idiocy, Middle class do not pay 30% federal income tax, Rich do not pay 15%, 15% is capital gains tax, meaning the rich pay additional tax on earnings they make on money they already paid income tax on long ago.. the issue with your entire ideology is you lack critical thinking and have no desire to actually analyze the rhetoric you spit out.
jkessler410 5 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@jkessler410 Here's one way to look at it. Based upon 2011 tax rates, filing single.
First guy make $100K and owes $18,957 Fed Tax -- He must work almost 10 weeks to earn.
Second guy make $20K and owes $ 1,150 Fed Tax -- He must work almost 3 weeks to earn.
If 3 weeks is a "fair share", then is the guy working 10 weeks paying his?
If 10 weeks is a "fair share", then is the guy working 3 weeks paying his?
If someone disagrees, I'd like to know why?
kbar8888 4 months ago
@skeptictom818 45,000 Americans die every single year due to a lack of health care, cutbacks have already resulted in the closure of mental health facilities and the layoffs of teachers and class sizes are skyrocketting again. The bulk of wealth has been transferred from the masses to the few wealthy, and the cost is high. Its well past time to ask those who have taken so much from so many to pay a small amount to alleviate the damage their greed has caused.
ChibiabosWolf 5 months ago
@ChibiabosWolf So what you're saying is that 0.015% of Americans die each year because of lack of health care. That sounds like an amazing success to me.
PissedFechtmeister 2 months ago
Rich pay 50% of the taxes. They control 80% of the resources.
Do you notice anything wrong in this equation?
Derekrife 5 months ago
@Derekrife Yes. It isn't an equation.
edwinorc 5 months ago 2
@pretorious700 (part 2) And corporations are NOT being "priced out" by labor unions and collective bargaining. That's batshit. Corporate profits have NEVER been as high as they are now. Never. Meanwhile the middle class is broke. The wealth is too lopsidedly allocated for the collective society to function much less prosper.
BTW, I've only encountered this degree of stupidity from Americans. You're in Thailand? Well do some research on wealth inequality. Should be enlightening.
NiNj4xNUTZz 5 months ago in playlist More videos from ReasonTV
wouldn't chairman Hillary qualify as "rich"?
pretorious700 5 months ago
damn Hillary has aged
enjoyitbro 5 months ago
Lets say that you have 10 kids and you earn one million dollars a year- since you have all those mouths to feed and butts to wipe, are you still considered wealthy?? I would think NOT!!!
Rtfune 5 months ago
@itachi705 Who on earth told you "taxes have risen"? They quite obviously haven't.
And companies don't outsource jobs because their taxes are too high. They do it because that's where the money is in the first place. They take advantage of poor people oversees who are forced to work longer hours for less pay. THEN they are encouraged to keep money oversees until the next tax holiday (much LOWER taxes).
Your thinking is utterly ass-backwards.
NiNj4xNUTZz 6 months ago
@NiNj4xNUTZz Sorry, but your comprehension is all wrong. People overseas are not "forced to work longer hours for less pay" by comparative standards. They are happy to have work and their lower costs of living justify their wages. Also the fact that labor unions and collective bargaining has priced out competitive wages in the US. You are a typical brainwashed liberal.
pretorious700 5 months ago
@pretorious700 I'm not a liberal, friendo. Lets not judge each other based on less than 500 characters of text. It's not an effective way of getting at the truth.
--"their lower costs of living justify their wages."
Precisely (from the purview of economic consequentialism). Their conditions of living *force* them to accept crappy jobs that pay shit. Are you telling me that's FAIR? So the fact that they already live in 3rd world conditions (morally) justifies their wages?
Okay.
NiNj4xNUTZz 5 months ago
It's all a question of balance.
seppsters 6 months ago
@seppsters You mean wealth distribution.
Seiku 6 months ago
@Seiku
-In- wealth distribution.
seppsters 6 months ago
taxes are burden on society. they don't do anyone any good.
lvll138inrs 6 months ago
Ugh, she is ugly beyond all belief.
bweazel 6 months ago
Warren Buffet pay's about 17% in taxes on his entire income.
His employees are paying more than 30% on theirs.
So yes, the rich aren't paying their fair share.
butsgalore 6 months ago
@butsgalore Warren Buffet Pays millions upon millions of dollars in taxes. Yes, he pays more than his fair share and he pays magnitudes more than his secretary.
bweazel 6 months ago
@bweazel,
Warren Buffet actually recently came out and fought against "coddling" the super-rich. He admits to paying a lower percentage of taxes than the average person. This video contains true information, but it leaves out other important information. If the top 1% pays for 19% of the overall taxes, it could be because they earn 19% of all the money on the country. This means the taxes are fair.
Yamazon3 6 months ago
@Yamazon3 If Buffet is paying 19% then he's paying more than the top 10% are on average. The top 1% earn 17% of the income but pay 37% of the taxes.
PissedFechtmeister 2 months ago
@PissedFechtmeister,
Depends on what taxes you are talking about. Let's talk about STRICTLY the federal level taxes, the top 1% in the united states tax bracket is only 35%. Even then, you can't actually hit 35% taxes, because our taxes are indexed, so by the time you reach the top tax bracket you will only have paid about 29.02% in taxes, even though the second highest tax bracket is 33%. Also, the US census says the top 1% make closer to 40% of the income. Sources are all .gov sites.
Yamazon3 2 months ago
@butsgalore If his employees are paying 30% then they are the 1%. The top 1% pay an average 24% income tax rate.
PissedFechtmeister 2 months ago
The top five percent own and control more than eighty percent of total wealth.... Twenty seven percent seems far to low. Apologists for oligarchs make me sick.
darththc 7 months ago
@darththc yeah fuck rich people, always buying things from people with jobs and providing jobs for others. Greedy fucks.
s0beit 6 months ago
Are Hilary and Barack willing to pay their "fair share"? Just wondering, considering Obama's standard for "enough" is 200k when the POTUS makes roughly 400k.
P.S. There's a section for "donation" on the IRS forms, so any volunteers can choose to give more to Uncle Sam if they want. Like Warren Buffet, who proclaimed taxes needed to be raised on the "rich" but according to Forbes, only decided to pay 19%. Something smells a bit fishy. Just sayin'.
fountainherz 7 months ago
@pseudoprodigy This Republican trickle down experiment has failed. The debate is over. It's time to turn around and face the real enemy that's been fucking us in the assholes for the last 50 years. Greed is the problem. Not taxes.
NiNj4xNUTZz 7 months ago
Stop lying.
sikorski22 7 months ago
@sikorski22 dumbass
david52875 7 months ago
Comment removed
pseudoprodigy 7 months ago
@pseudoprodigy --"Raise the taxes and watch the rich leave with all the remaining private sector jobs to a place less taxed and regulated."
Oh please. The rich haven't paid this little in taxes in over 60 years. In any case, that's EXACTLY what they're doing already! They outsource jobs and wait for tax holidays to bring the profits back so that they'll only pay 5%. Instead of investing in domestic sourcing (which WOULD create jobs), they pay the savings out to themselves in dividends.
NiNj4xNUTZz 7 months ago
@NiNj4xNUTZz What the fuck are you talking about, taxes have RISEN. So your solution is to raise them even further and cause more outsourcing? LOL.
itachi705 7 months ago
More fallacies: I am part of a group, therefore I must represent all the beliefs of the group. FALSE.
PakiPride51 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I know my facts, man, I know my facts.
GatesYardley 9 months ago
The thing is, Nick Gillespie, that even though the richest 1% of the American population pay such and such a percent of their income into taxes..... That 1% are so unfairly and rediculously rich, that a tiny sliver of their outrageous income would be enough to sustain a luxurious lifestyle. I mean if you make seventy five million dollars a year, say - like Ray R. Irani, of Occidental Petrolium, you could be paying 75% income tax, helping pay for much needed social programs, and be living fine.
GatesYardley 9 months ago
@GatesYardley You don't know your facts. Obama's budget for F2011 is $3.7 trillion, that's 10 BILLION DOLLARS PER DAY!!!! There isn't enough wealth in all of the US to sustain that kind of spending year after year even if you take everything from every wealthy person and corporation in America. Search youtube for a video called "eat the rich". See if you still believe what you believe after you watch that video.
mikebri527 9 months ago
@GatesYardley Private charities and private sector investments are more efficient and do a better job of relieving the poor and misery than any social program or government can throw at them. Jobs don't come from government. You want to help the poor while they're poor instead of stopping them from being poor. What you are advocating would make the poor much poorer and the rich a little less rich. The last thing we need are more inefficient wasteful social programs
AroundSun 7 months ago
@AroundSun What... I'm not saying anything about getting the poor jobs, or anything about jobs for that matter. All I'm saying is if you have a million billion dollars in the fucking bank, your an asshole and you should share it.
GatesYardley 7 months ago
@GatesYardley a 75% tax on producers would raise prices by almost the same amount. It would cut jobs and lower wages as well. The money has to come from somewhere. So the money taken from the producer is given to the consumer only to pay a higher price? It defeats the purpose.The money never really ends up in the hands of the people either so the price difference wouldn't even equal out. I don't think people receiving free money are really in need of more free money, they need jobs to produce.
AroundSun 7 months ago
@GatesYardley People can't hoard their income either. They either invest it, spend it, or keep it in banks which lowers interest rates. Most of that 75% would be in the hands of the people who put the politicians in office and would be subject to 4th category spending. We literally have the highest CMR in the WORLD. Besides, gov't always collects 18% of GDP whether taxes are high or low. Our entitlement and social programs are beyond bankrupt as it is. We need to CUT TAXES and STOP SPENDING
AroundSun 7 months ago
@AroundSun what the hell is cmr, take money from rich people, buy rice, and send it to africa what is so difficult to understand about my position.
GatesYardley 7 months ago
@GatesYardley STEAL money from RICH people.Ok, first someone has to decide what and who is rich. Then, you are going to have to use the govt to take their money.When taxes go up, the government actually collects LESS tax revenues. Also, where in the constitution does it say that you may steal from some to give to others? NOWHERE. rich people already pay the lions share in taxes and as it goes up so will prices.Keep voting for people like hillary tho who lie, tell you otherwise to get your vote
AroundSun 7 months ago
@GatesYardley But the man worked for and owns that money not you or me.
Orionx30 7 months ago
@Orionx30 Listen, if you want to look at it like a capitalist, consider yourself like a manager of a store or something. You have one employee that's in charge of investing 25% of all your resources, and another 99 employees in charge of investing the rest. Each employee can only actually make practical use of 5% of your cash [By this I mean, everyone in the richest 1% of say, americans, couldn't spend the amount of money they have in one lifetime if they tried, so they can't......
GatesYardley 7 months ago
@Orionx30 Can't practically ever use that resource, so the analogy, your one employee only on one computer cant even handle the number of accounts required to invest that resource]) now the other 75% of the resources can effectively be handled by fifteen fully functioning employees. That leaves you with 84 completely useless dead weight guys in your store, fifteen that are doing fine, and one that is tying up all your fucking resources, but not working accounts with them. Why Not MANAGE.....
GatesYardley 7 months ago
@Orionx30 .....Some of those resources across to the other employees, if you spread it evenly, each employee only really has to do 20% of what is considered a full workload [5% resources] in order for all of your capital to be working accounts, and for all of your employees to earn their keep. You can't deny that the US is a sinking ship, a military industrial shithole that is either destined for anihilation, or unjust and ruthless world control by police/military force. Imagine other options.
GatesYardley 7 months ago
LOL, when the rich own 90% of the wealth but only pay 40% of the bill, no they are not paying enough.
anthraxmm 9 months ago
@anthraxmm 90% of "the wealth". As if privately owned and accumulated capital is subjected to the good graces of the voting public. That whole mindset that there is "the wealth" is a zero sum game fallacy. There is no "the wealth". You don't own a share of my property or my home simply for existing. "The wealth" is a pie that GROWS. Me getting rich doesn't make you poorer but liberals are always stuck in that mindset because they are economically challenged.
AroundSun 7 months ago 2
She is another communist fool...
pismo10 9 months ago
The rich own most of wealth in country. Naturally they are going to pay more.
dvdragon 10 months ago
hilary ,when you speak you speak for the office and the administration.no ifs or buts.you either do that or you resign.you can speak for yourself after you retire.
nphanlon1973 10 months ago
I only pay 36% in tax. And I'm amazed that it's not more. I would pay 40-50% without a doubt if it was forced on me. Oh, and btw, I live in Denmark, the most taxed country in the world.
MeningsMod 10 months ago
@FenrirLupus
Look at our debt history. We didn't have any real debt problems till Reagan. And no increasing taxes do create revenue. Thats just the way it is. Especially when you put the tax burden on billionaires. Putting it at 90% isn't necessarily to generate more revenues. Which it does, but its to keep the money out of the hands of the few. Its quit simply ECONOMIC CHECKS AND BALANCES. Something we desperately need in the country. I agree. We do need to make serious cuts though!!
Healing6arts9 11 months ago
@Healing6arts9 It’s clear you have no idea how the economy works. Nor the fact that billionaires can pick up their money and move it elsewhere. Why the hell should anyone have to pay 90% of their income to the government? Do you really think its ok to take someone’s assets just because you think they have too much?
billolson6 10 months ago
Most rich people only pay a 15% capital gains tax! If you look at every statistic since Regan cut the top tax braces in half, wages have stagnated, the middle class has shrunk, the gap between rich and poor has grown so far apart that the U.S. is ranked dead last in income distribution in the world! Our debt has gone through the roof. Roll back the Regan tax cuts!!!!!!
Healing6arts9 1 year ago
@Healing6arts9 That depends entirely on which groups you are considering "rich." If you are talking about billionaires, then I agree with you that they generally are not paying as much as a percentage of earnings as other income groups. But the vast majority of people who make, for example, $100k to $200k per year do not do so through investments. Most of them are entrepreneurs, doctors, lawyers, executives... etc. These people are "rich" but certainly pay more than 15%.
jetboyJ22 1 year ago
@jetboyJ22 I agree totally with you.
I think we need to create a new tax bracket at 1million. then another at 10 million
And we need to make a the capital gains part of the income tax or make it progressive. 100k or 200k are really just middle class now because of how high inflation is. Its a crime to have the tax bracket stop at 250k..... This effectively makes our tax system regressive not progressive
Healing6arts9 11 months ago
Comment removed
kellymoo 9 months ago
vengeful, I think you're misunderstanding the facts in the video. The top 1% of earners earn 19% of the nation's income and pay 26% of the nation's taxes.
However, the real problem here isn't who's paying how much in taxes, it's the fact that tax money is going towards bailing out failing corporations, propping up foreign dictators, and lining the pockets of the people who line our politicians' pockets.
anoncastillo 1 year ago
@anoncastillo You have nailed the problem anoncastillo. I am amazed by how many people want the other guy to pay more and think it's ok to put their hand in someone else’s pocket to pay for their own interests. How many of you are willing to reach in your own pocket and put more money on the table?
billolson6 10 months ago
too bad even thou they pay 26% of the taxes, they own about 80% of the income. so therefore logic should state that since they earn 80% of the income, they should be paying 80% of the taxes.
vengefulspirit99 1 year ago
@vengefulspirit99 the 26% figure was not the percentage of total taxes collected from the government from the richest quintile, it was the richest quintiles average tax rate. So if you make 200,000 you pay on average 52,000. Their total share of the nations income was 55.7% according to the CBO.
donttreadonmyass 1 year ago
Ah, now I understand why he said "you should go and watch the whores of the elite over at "reason" tv".
GnosticAtheist 1 year ago
"the rich are not paying their fair share in any nation"
what about cuba? nort korea? none of them?
evilsceptic 1 year ago
This guy isn't mentioning that Dubya signed a law during his last term that lets the top 2% pay their entire incomes at the 15% capitol gains rate, meaning that Ms Clinton is indeed correct and the income tax rate is a non-issue. He's not lying, and yet he is not telling the truth. A very shrewd bit of propaganda for sure.
Supercolonic 1 year ago
@Supercolonic Um, are you stupid?
itachi705 1 year ago
Yeah! Screw those evil rich people! That money that they earn as a result of capital enterprise, investment and risk doesn't belong to them, they're not working for it! It belongs to us, the little people, the folks. Take their money and give me social programs, services and tax credits! I'm tired of being a shill for the wealthy! Yeah!
Hey, by the way any of you "poor little folk" hiring because I'm looking for a job?
magicpoliceman 1 year ago
@magicpoliceman The "rich" is one thing, what needs to be done is to kill off the bankers. You know, murder them. The "rich" are nothing but pretty dressed puppets for the truly powerful. But dont you worry.
Its coming. The heat is going to be turned up, and no lies, no deception, no words will help in the end. :D
GnosticAtheist 1 year ago
Extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich only would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit in 2011. If the Bush Tax Cuts expire the overall federal tax rate for the rich would jump to about 29.9%, compared with 24.6% if all the tax cuts were extended.
Washington Post
Study: Bush Tax Cuts Cost More Than Twice As Much As Health-Care Bill
ctj.org/pdf/bushtaxcutsvshealthcare.pdf
NewsPoliticsInfo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NewsPoliticsInfo First: The Top rate would go to 39.6 not 29.6..so you're quite a bit off. Second: Obamacare is estimated to cost 1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Based on your quote above "Extending the Bush Tax Cuts for the rich only would add more than $36 billion to the federal deficit in 2011" 36 Billion a year over 10 years is 360 Billion. Explain to us how 360 Billion is More than 1.5 Trillion? You're only off by about 450% I guess math wasn't your strong suit in high school?
jonkabbash 1 year ago
@jonkabbash amazing how your post was flagged as spam when you smashed the deficit argument. Once again the the "liberal" progressive socialist left shows it's true colors and their "free speech for me, but not for thee!" attitude. They hate when you break their argument.
magicpoliceman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@magicpoliceman Luckily it's still up.
jonkabbash 1 year ago
wouldnt like a regular household that maybe makes like 250k (i dont know i dont own a house) pay 65k if its 26% and then someone who makes 750k that pays the same % pay 195k. So isnt it kind of fair? im kind of in the middle of the fence on this one
Iplayphone 1 year ago
@Iplayphone It's not a flat tax - so no, they don't pay the same percentage. And the way the tax laws are written you pay more of a percentage of your income in taxes when you make more, UNTIL you make a LLOOTT more - then you start paying LESS. So people making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year pay a bigger percentage than people making millions of dollars - and people making millions of dollars a year are paying more of a percentage of their income in taxes than BILLIONAIRES ARE.
twochordcool 1 year ago
@Iplayphone google or search on youtube "warren buffett taxes secretary" - then watch the video. Billionaires pay less of a percentage of their income than upper middle class people do.
twochordcool 1 year ago
Why is it that Warren Buffet - the second richest man in the US - pays 17% of his income in federal taxes, but his secretary, who makes a FRACTION of what he makes pays 33% of her income in federal taxes?
THE FACT IS that the upper middle class pays A LOT MORE of a percentage of their income in taxes than do billionaires - and there is NO WAY to justify that.
More LIES and misleading information from reason.tv
twochordcool 1 year ago
@twochordcool LOL reason.tv fucking rapes you.
itachi705 1 year ago
You just PROVED that the rich DO NOT pay their fair share of taxes: "The top 1% of households earn 19% of all income but paid over 28% of all federal taxes"
The top 1% earn 19% of all income!!!
Do you know HOW MUCH 19% of all income is?
And by the way, the top 1% earn WWAAYY more than 19% of all income now.
twochordcool 1 year ago
We should rewrite the tax code, plain and simple. Most of the wealthy simply find way to offset whatever increase will come. Historically, the Government gains LESS taxes when they increase them. It's a matter of efficiency, period.
bedingo 1 year ago
it's a shell game. it's the same game they pulled when the income tax came up for vote in the constitution to begin with. it wasn't even intended to be hoisted on the poor, but the rich campaigned to get the poor behind it, then switched it around to apply to everyone at the last minute. this is exactly the game that's being played now. Warren buffet, clinton, saying how the "rich", which they are a part of, aren't paying their fair share. Guaranteed they itemize every year. DO YOU?
shakaama 1 year ago
I'm sure any rich folks reading these comments are comforted knowing the serfs are arguing furiously on their behalf.
eunicron 1 year ago
@eunicron lol
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
The current top tax rate is 35%. It was 31% when President Clinton took office and asked the wealthy to make a "temporary sacrifice". At that time the top rate was moved to 39.6%. This was designed to help bring our deficit under control. After 4 successive surpluses, President Bush proposed a partial rollback of the top rate. This was protested by the liberals as unfairly giving tax breaks to the wealthy. But the wealthy were the ones who had their rates increased! How long is temporary?
ARDavis71 1 year ago
the clintons can't talk. the foundation they started last decade has helped shelter over 6 million dollars. which is fine, they have every right to keep their money away from the gov't by legal means. but don't try to trash the rich for not paying enough taxes when you do everything you can to avoid paying them yourself.
by the way, just why is it fair to make any one person pay more of a share of their income than another based on who makes more?
umrmecheman 1 year ago
All that has been done for the good of all will turn to evil. I say reduce government and then reduce taxes. Vote in November and keep the Faith.The nation is broken and needs fixing, Buy we the people.A government that uses race as a tool in a country of many races will fail we are Americans and we need to remember why we came here. treat all fair then we can be proud for we are a nation under God.Is this the best we can do how have you improved life for others today Evil is when God is missing
kinbigbird 1 year ago
If it is that much of an issue for the rich to be paying all those "high taxes," i have a solution; we can trade places, give me all your weath and belongings, and then you can have all i have. We will just completely switch, you will acquire my good looks and i will get all your money, property, and all of your taxes as well. Then after you have lived my life for a while then tell me how much you want to return to paying those high taxes again.
eimajism 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eimajism "Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.-- Joseph Sobran
Darkwizzrobe 1 year ago
The top one percent of all taxpayers earned 19% of all income but paid 28% of all income taxes.
That is not social justice!
FreeAgain2 1 year ago
@FreeAgain2 The incomes of the top 1/10th of 1% grew by 94% between 2002 and 2007. Yours and mine grew by about 4%.
You have to consider which way the money is flowing, for the past 30 yrs it's been flowing to the top. You tax income, the rich have been getting richer, so the taxes have to "follow the money"
Trust me, the top 1% look at us, the way we look at homeless people. Except they have no compassion or empathy. They laugh at our $100k homes.
twosquirrelly 1 year ago
the rich have earned their money with their own hard work. It's their money!!! and nobody should have a say in what they do with it other then them. you say taking some of it wont hurt them? too fucking bad! you can't have it.
boonie1994 1 year ago
@boonie1994 actually a lot of people are born into money and are afraid of it being taken away. Even those who earn it tend to earn it at the direct expense of others. In order for the rich to stay rich the poor must stay poor. (I am not poor, I am one of the top 19% but I pay my taxes and don't bitch about it) People are all so greedy.
nosnhoj1987 1 year ago
@nosnhoj1987 well of course there are a few people who get it at the expense of others, but that shouldn't affect the majority! and im not saying that the rich should stay rich, just that the government shouldn't be making them poor. and poor people can get rich if they put in the effort. The governments job should be to protect the rights of the people and nothing else.
boonie1994 1 year ago
@boonie1994 in theory that's all good but we both know the world doesn't work that way. I agree that the government shouldn't be taking our money but at the moment there is very little we can do about it unless we have investments and pull in the government's parties. If there is ever a serious revolution by the citizens in this country I will, without hesitation, pick up a pitchfork and torch and march to DC with everyone else.
nosnhoj1987 1 year ago
This dickhead is a 'useful idiot' for the corporate aristocracy.
The super rich paid 3 times more than they pay today for most of the 20th cent. It didn't hurt their life style, the entrepreneurial spirit thrived, and the country paid down the humongous debt from WWII.
twosquirrelly 1 year ago
@twosquirrelly I am not a supply-sider, but I think that it is obvious that marginal tax rates have a profound impact upon an individual's economic decisions. If you think that confiscating 90% of income from people who work their tails off will inspire more people to work their tales off, you're fooling yourself.
The fiscal situation in '45 was markedly different from now. All the US had to do was cut military spending. Presently, we face longterm runaway entitlement costs.
AnonymousPundit 1 year ago
@AnonymousPundit "work their tales off" ??!!
Oh please.
The vast majority of the income of the wealthiest individuals comes from investment income, which is a product of COLLECTIVE wealth -- wealth created by thousands/millions of people which is transferred to the elite.
Stop being such a shill for the "monied aristocracy"-- they're laughing at you.
twosquirrelly 1 year ago
@twosquirrelly
Its quite telling that your only response to a logical critique is a Marxian/classist smear.
You are ignorant of a few vital economic concepts:
1. Capital and therefore investment income are the byproduct of deferred consumption and thrift BY INDIVIDUALS, not a nebuluous collective.
2. Sustainable economic growth and job growth are contingent upon capital growth.
3. Taxes are an inherent disincentive towards whatever behavior at which they are targeted.
AnonymousPundit 1 year ago
@AnonymousPundit and it's "quite telling" that your response is the typical straw man argument. Again, the rich make most of their money in investments and capital gains. Both are considered "PASSIVE INCOME" as opposed to earned income...you know, where you "work your ass off" for a paycheck.
"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor."
Marx....no wait...Thomas Jefferson
twosquirrelly 1 year ago
@twosquirrelly nice
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
@AnonymousPundit
"1. deferred consumption and thrift BY INDIVIDUALS." Say's law... Problem is that's bullshit and has been proven bullshit. Banks having ~5% of GDP make 50% of all annual profits. There is plenty of capital out there, it's just goes to into 'riccardian rent' driving asset bubbles.
2. Growing up requires regular shitting, but taking laxatives won't help you break into the NBA.
3. Not really, though I agree tax economic rent and plutocracy rather than productivity.
CmdrTobs 1 year ago
Hillary is a thug!
BabelOn4infinity 1 year ago
Wow morons. Way to completely misrepresent the argument. The "Tax the Rich" mantra has very little to do with the average percentage of income paid to taxes. It's about relative percentages paid. To someone who is very very poor a 5% income tax would hurt a lot more than a 50% income tax on a billionaire. Also, another argument has to do with tax loopholes used by the rich to evade taxes. Greece's problem wasn't a spending problem. The problem is that the rich didn't pay their taxes.
b2tama 1 year ago
@b2tama relative to what? a percentage is already relative by definition
ortzinator 1 year ago
@b2tama when the US entered WWII, FDR decided that no one was going to get rich from going to war. The tax rate was hiked up to something like 90% for the rich and it stayed there until the 60s. We should go back to those tax brackets until the debt is paid off.
twosquirrelly 1 year ago
Fair tax . com
gollyanamegame 1 year ago
I don't know if they 'pay their fair share' but I do know that the government always errs on the side of the hyper wealthy. By rich Hillary probably means the middle class, not the crazy CEO billionaires that I mean by hyper wealthy, the top 1% of the country that owns 96% of the wealth that our government so wonderfully ensures are given no competition and does everything in their power to destroy the middle class, widening the gulf between the poor and the rich. Plutocracy.
Silvsilvchan 1 year ago
Hillary clinton is a scum bag just like her husband. She should be in jail for more than just White Water, what about Vince Foster? That cunt had him killed.
Godzilla1909 1 year ago
Interesting fact about what happens when you target the "rich" with taxes, the Federal Gov't taxed long distance phone calls to pay for the Spanish American War. ( 1898) because at the time only RICH people had phones, of course the Feds forgot to rescind the tax, and EVERYONE paid that tax until 2006 when it was finally repealed.
kmarshstpete 1 year ago
@MrJeggus He paid less percentage. Thats because his secretary paid income tax AND FICA tax, on every dime of what she earned. Buffet doesn''t pay FICA on 99.9999 % of his income. Plus, most of his income is cap gains, which has a very low rate. So, no FICA + a low rate = modest percentage. His secretary FICA + high rate = high percentage.
SteamboatCamp 1 year ago
@SteamboatCamp I'm beginning to like you. You are like belligerent foul mouthed Dr. Watson. Continually wrong but you do give others the opportunity to logically dissect all you errors. You are my praxiological aid. :)
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp you probably already have aids.
Why the fuck do you think Buffet said he paid lower tax rates than his secretary? Dumb ass -- its because his gain is capital gains -- maxed at 15%, with no FICA. His secretary could pay 30%, PLUS FICA.
If you know of a different reason, share it, or shut the fuck up
SteamboatCamp 1 year ago
@SteamboatCamp
According to Buffet, the reason he paid less than his secretary is that his accountants were able to find ways to make most of his income non-taxable, or offset the taxes through the use of special exceptions in the taxcode.
badmailexample 1 year ago
@SteamboatCamp BTW I don't particularly like the FT that is why I didn't bring reference it as a good example of a consumption tax, YOU did that, but your critiques have been terrible and superficial. If you want a some good logical critiques try reading some of these:
mises.org/daily/2961
mises.org/daily/2327
mises.org/daily/1975
mises.org/daily/1814
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp Are you fucking insane? I pointed out that FT is a pile of shit - that it's own leaders don't dare have hearings on it, that it's based on layers of absurdities, and that their leaders fucking KNOW it. How the FUCK can that by "superficial" you fucking moron. How fucking stupid can you get without pulling shit out of your brain? Now, I may be wrong on that (Im not) but it sure as FUCK is not superficial you fucking idiot.
SteamboatCamp 1 year ago
@SteamboatCamp Hahaha you are a funny little man :D ad hominem attack, ad hominem attack, pointless comment. Most of your arguments against FT are not strong arguments against FT. For instance it is not politically viable, so what that is completely irrelevant to the functionality of the policy, how about the percent of a revenue nuetral sales tax being too high, so what you are already paying the same amount in a different form, ect. these are some weak ass irrelevant arguments against FT.
bullpcp 1 year ago
Bull sorry dumb fuck -- I pay about 8% of my income to federal taxes. I don't pay anything close to 30%, so no dumb fuck, its not the same amount in different form.
FT is not "politically viable" because the fucking con artist that head it up, know its pure bullshit, and would avoid hearings under oath like the fucking clap. My point is -- its a FUCKING FARCE -- their leaders KNOW its a farce, and they depend on really stupid fucks not to notice.
SteamboatCamp 1 year ago
Comment removed
bullpcp 1 year ago
@SteamboatCamp I'm not going to give you as much credit as before and assume you know this but you can disagree on the particulars and still agree on the final assessment. This means I can DISAGREE with your arguments against FT even as I agree that it is in your own words a "piece of shit" this is called making a balanced, as opposed to bipolar, assessment of a policy. The world is not black and white, whole good or bad, that is except in simple angry little minds.
bullpcp 1 year ago
What particulars do you think FT has? Its a farce dumb ass. Its a magic wand they pretend to stick up your ass, so you shit gold. They know it doesn't work. They know it's a hoax. They know they have NO research. They know they aren't about to have hearings about it under oath.
This plan is a FARCE --its own leaders know it, it's not a real tax plan.
SteamboatCamp 1 year ago
@SteamboatCamp Leaders didn't have hearings on alleged voter fraud but spent over twenty minutes on which college teams they were going to recognize. This is another of your arguments that is almost completely without merit, in other words weak. I have faith that you have the potential to grow out of your emotional tantrums, that you are not just trolling the boards, if people give you logical constructive criticism unless you are perfect maybe you should consider their merits.
bullpcp 1 year ago
Bull -- wait dumb fuck -- so they have no "research" they have no support from corporations, they avoid hearings under oath for 13 years, real studies have shown its nonsense, but they "spent over 20 minutes" with some college kids????
Who spent 20 minutes? And what the FUCK does that prove? Fairtax is a farce, a hoax, and its own leaders know it.
SteamboatCamp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SteamboatCamp Leaders didn't have hearings on alleged voter fraud but spent over twenty minutes on which college teams they were going to recognize. This is another of your arguments that is almost completely without merit, in other words weak. I have faith that you have the potential to grow out of your emotional tantrums, that you are not just trolling the boards. If people give you logical constructive criticism unless you are perfect maybe you should consider their criticisms merits.
bullpcp 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SteamboatCamp Leaders didn't have hearings on alleged voter fraud but spent over twenty minutes on which college teams they were going to recognize. This is another of your arguments that is almost completely without merit, in other words weak. I have faith that you have the potential to grow out of your emotional tantrums, that you are not just trolling the boards. If people give you logical constructive criticism unless you are perfect maybe you should consider their criticisms merits.
bullpcp 1 year ago
Depends how they get the money. If you work for your money, if you own a business to get your money, you pay a tremendous amount of taxes.
What you lunatics don't seem to grasp is -- if you make the money from credit swaps, capital gains, derivities, dividends (god bless them all) you pay far less or no taxes. The best money I ever made -- and the lowest taxes -- was on cap gains.
Have everyone pay alike, no matter how they make it.
SteamboatCamp 1 year ago
@SteamboatCamp That is why I would just as soon tax consumption instead of production as to avoid the complexities of the current tax system. And corporate or business taxes or multistage value added taxes are a nightmarish waste of time.
bullpcp 1 year ago
bullcrp -- I would just soon wave a magic wand and eat chocolate. So the fuck what?
Here is a clue. A national sales tax to replace all other taxes would be 60-90% not fucking 23%. Check out a thing called MATH.
That's my point -- FT math is bullshit, and they KNOW it. They count as income some bizzaro tax on GOVERNMENT. Got that retard? They tax shit they KNOW they can't tax. That's how the get 23%. Fuck, idiot, why not tax moonbeams, and your farts? Makes just as much sense.
SteamboatCamp 1 year ago
@SteamboatCamp First of all you are completely wrong about the 60%-90% but even if you weren't so what. You are already paying the same amount in productivity taxes. And yes if the government bought end of point sales items they would pay taxes and it would have a geometric progression not unlike the feds required bank reserve rate on the money supply. But AGAIN even if it did take a sales tax of 60%-90% to pay the SAME taxes you are paying now SO WHAT? Maybe you comparing income to sales tax
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp Don't forget, in the US you can deduct the current sales taxes from the current income taxes. Annoying to keep all the records for, yes, but it does mean you only pay the greater of the two. Here in Canada, you get taxed earning AND spending.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@SteamboatCamp You need to heed your own advice and check out this thing called math because you must be confused by simple arithmetical or geometric progression or basic algebraic equivalencies. Again even if you were correct about the 60%-90%, and you are NOT, that would be how much you are currently paying now anyway. A 100% sales tax would be the equivalent of a 50% income tax which is approximately what we pay now when all things are considered.
bullpcp 1 year ago
bull -- wrong -- the FT llunatic BS is that it wont cost ANYTHING. Prices will FALL almost exactly as much as the tax will INCREASE. Did you know that? IN effect, dumb fuck -- a free lunch. Read the fucking book. Boortz calls it "a wash". Prices fall, the tax replaces that. Its fucking bat shit crazy you dumb fuck - -and they know it.
SteamboatCamp 1 year ago
@SteamboatCamp Actually you are correct in that some people who support the FT do believe that prices would fall due to increased efficiency or reduced compliance costs enough to counteract the increase due to the sales tax, I'm not one. Increases in productivity and efficiency do give you the equivalent of a "free lunch" this is why we work less and get more today than 100 years ago. Compliance costs already cost many billions of dollars a year for both the income and business taxes.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@SteamboatCamp If I make $100 and pay %50 to income tax I have $50 to spend without a sales tax I simply spend the $50. If I make $100 and pay no income tax I have $100 and with a %100 sales tax I would be able to purchase $50 worth of goods and services. Thus 50% production tax is the equivalent of 100% consumption tax in this case. If you need me to explain geometric compounding I could do that also but I'm beginning to feel sorry for you, like I'm picking on you.
bullpcp 1 year ago
Bull what part of this don't you fucking grasp? NO one is trying to pass this piece of shit. NO ONE. Fairtax leaders have run like pussies from any hearing under oath. They fucking know it's totally insane.
With NO ONE even willing to have a hearing under oath, how the fuck do you think it will ever even get to committee? Much less pass, moron./
SteamboatCamp 1 year ago
@SteamboatCamp You aren't the sharpest spoon in the drawer are you? I was comparing the taxation of production to that of consumption and YOU are the one to bring up FT. And since when did the political viability of a policy have anything to do with it's ethicacy or effectiveness. I wish I lived in a world were it mattered but it doesn't. A good idea is a good idea regardless of it's political viability.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@SteamboatCamp You never even addressed the real issue of the differences between taxing productivity versus consumption or that if the federal government gets $3+ trillion in taxes and it costs 50% in productivity taxes why it should anger you so much to shift it to a single 60%-90%-100% because even if you assume the same exact efficiency in all tax systems, an incredibly ignorant assumption on your part, you would still have the same tax burden but without the disincentives to produce.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@SteamboatCamp They used the 23% number to directly compare with production taxes specifically to avoid the type of confusion you seem to a victim of. 23% income tax is NOT the equivalent 23% sales tax. It would instead be approximately a 29.87% or round off to about 30%. But again what difference does it make? It's the same taxes all in one place so you can see how much you are paying the government. If you are angry about the high taxes don't blame FT blame government spending.
bullpcp 1 year ago
@bullpcp nonsense idiot, they used 23% to fool your dumb fucking ass. Got that.
They may as well tax moonbeams and your farts dumb fuck, as to tax the government and the poor. Got that retard? They PRETEND they will make the government the BIGGEST TAXPAYER. Did you know that you fucking retard/
They KNOW that's fucking insane, but that's how the got 23% -- its pure fucking nonsense.
SteamboatCamp 1 year ago
@SteamboatCamp As a single entity the Government is the biggest employer and the the biggest payer of taxes NOW did you know that. That's right it's the current state of affairs. Welcome to reality :P
bullpcp 1 year ago
perotcharts com - QED. Liar hillary. YOU ARE A LIAR. The unfairness of the progressive tax system is unreal, and as middle class Im getting nailed. Its the SPENDING and ENTITLEMENTS that cause all this mess.
mickrussom 1 year ago
Communist rat vermin Hillary. I already pay MORE than a fair share. I’ve raised probably 4-5 ghetto rat families already.
Define rich – rich is all those hard working middle class folks with kids and major responsibilities that the democrats tax the living hell out of while claiming to love the middle class.
mickrussom 1 year ago
hilary's hair is so flat :-)
carehappens 1 year ago
@Offenso Thank you for accepting my points graciously.
1. The Federal income tax was started in 1913.
2. The gowth that we experienced in those years was unsustainable. It led us to get rid of the gold standard to print enough money to cover our debts and led to price controls and shortages.
Remeber, both Clinton and Bush had great years of Economic growth, however, both where caused by low intrest rates that we will eventually have to pony up for.
Steve83B 1 year ago
Does anyone else ever consider what the difference is for someone that makes 30k a year and pays over 20% vs someone who makes 30 million a year and pays 30%? At some point you have so much money the only way to spend it is to buy insanely expensive things. Cry more greedy bastards.. So you only have 20 million to blow on stuff you really dont need. Compare yourself to people who struggle to pay the bills and bust their butts just to have a job. This makes me sick.
myriadcorp 1 year ago
so what? if you think this kind of government spending is appropriate, then the rich ARE paying too little. taxes are better than debt.
you can always advocate less spending, but tax cuts while this spending goes on aren't something a libertarian should advocate. you end up discrediting yourself. see reagan.
myrelative 1 year ago
you lying pieces of shit - the ending of the wlefare for the rich is not going to effect many people unless you consider 1% the majority dickwad
justonefirefly1 1 year ago
@justonefirefly1 I love that the owner of the corporation makes tons of money... It lets me know that he'll have enough to pay me and still make a profit.
ragincaucasian319 1 year ago
@ragincaucasian319 Philip Hampson "Phil" Knight the owner of Nike when asked why he has little 5 and 6 years olds working in his factory to produce these piece of shit shoes and pays them 5 cents a day while he is billionaire over and over. - and you think you dumbass that the corporation bothers to pay you when someday they will have you and your babies working for nothing you dumbass
justonefirefly1 1 year ago
@justonefirefly1 I'll take him over the sponges that live off the government trough any day of the week.
ragincaucasian319 1 year ago
Government employees on average make twice as much as the typical US employee! This doesn't seem far to me Mrs. Clinton...... does it?
jeremy8080 1 year ago
If we got rid of crony capitalism we would more readily accept corporate CEOs salaries and the wealthiness's salaries. With no more corporate welfare people can't, somewhat justifiably complain, about the subsidies, tax breaks, other unfair advantages many corporations gain. But lets solve the problem at its source instead of treating symptoms.
bullpcp 1 year ago