The ultimate "trickle-down" economics is Keynesianism where gov't "stimulates" the economy by giving taxpayer’s money to “special interest groups” in return for their “campaign support”.
The Fed & IRS corrupt crony politicians with power to redistribute, borrow & debase to buy “support” from Unions, “Too Big to Fail” Corporations, the Military-Industrial Complex & Wall Street cartel.
Central Banking = Central Economic Planning Despotism.
What alot of people don't understand is if they had not extended the tax cuts for the top tax braket, those individuals would still get a tax cut on all income $250,000 and below, and see a tax hike on all income above that.
@philateliceun - in some cases, but if you take for instance the Forbes 400 list the majority of them were born rich (the Walton family of Wallmart fame is a prime example).
Besides that if you are already poor then u need all the money u can just to get by, there is no surpluss to save. ..
Liberal Democrats hate the rich more than they love economic growth or tax cuts for the middle class. Democrats find it is more emotionally satisfying to punish the wealthy than it is to assist the non-wealthy.
The CIA, Pentagon, military and international corporations are too big. We need big govt or no one can handle them. Small govt is just some stupid campaign slogan. Laws are not everything, under funded policies monitoring loopholes put average people like you and me in huge disadvantages.
they are making trillions!!!!!! every year...collecting back, what we worked for.and in no way giving it back to you, unless u break your fucking arm and got to the social security for help...in this life, i like to save so i can pay for my hospital, instead of paying every month just incase i fucking get sick one day...get a life guys, i loove all of USA, but u guys accpeted hook line and sinker ur authorities as the truth ratehr than the truth as the authority
u think there are 1.5 billion people without electricity or water, and billions without a decent life style...because they are stupid morons???? get a calculator guyysss...if every american gave 5 dollars a year....you would pay your dumb asss services and infrastructure athat is already built by your history...all u gotta do is enjoy it and clean it a bit...how much money do u think thye are making when they colect thosands and millions from the rich..and also over 5 bucks from the poor...??
its the governments way of making u think they cae...why doesnt the government ever build a business and for once MAKE money...instead of COLLECT with force...and yeah with force...dont pay taxes, go to the sahara dessert and wait for them to get you... in the ohter hand, the underwear bomber is sitting on his ass smiling with his maradara rights....
listen smart asses..the nations roads, infrastructure and etc is paid for by specific taxes...u wanna live like denmark? 75% income tax, the people that dont have a job are the happiest ones alive...they are vagabonds lazy asses that get a free check by the government ..who get their check by those who had the brains to start a businees...go to denmark INCOME TAX LOVERS....i dont wanna tax the poor or the rich...get a life bitches, you are the working coommmon people, the government doesnt help
What total nonsense you speak income tax for the top bracket aftern ww2 was well over 70 percent until the mid 70's, the exact opposite of your claim.
Eg. 1936 to 1939 was 79 percent 1952 1953 was 92, 1988 -1990 was 28
Now its at 35 percent
So dont talk shit.
Source: wikipedia [Income_tax_in_the_United_States - History_of_federal_income_tax]
@SensiStarToaster Gee, just go research the percent of GDP Fed Govt received in taxes, during the 1950`s, compared to 2001- 2008 with Bush. 17.3% in the 1950`s, 17.4% with Bush. That is just facts, numbers, reality of the real- life test of tax cutting. Since taxes remains similiar, that PROVES tax cuts cause more economic activity to be taxed.
@12REASONSTOWORRY What kind of fucking idiot doesnt UNDERSTAND the nations infrastructure and services are paid by taxes. Also that lower taxes for the rich isnt effective in growing the economy when compared to lowering taxes for the middle class. Also, what kind of fucking idiot doesnt get that lower taxes for the rich has to be paid for, and thus the middle class will have to do it with social security being cut - thus destroying the economy eventually, when the US falls deeper into dept.
@starbucks3954 research the percent of GDP Fed Govt received in taxes, during the 1950`s, compared to 2001- 2008 with Bush. 17.3% in the 1950`s, 17.4% with Bush. That is just facts, numbers, reality of the real- life test of tax cutting. Since taxes remains similiar, that PROVES tax cuts cause more economic activity to be taxed.
@luvcheney1 Except the 1950's saw amazing economic growth, and the 2007 saw a terrible recession. So nice comparison? Also, the tax GDP doesn't measure what portion of society paid what taxes, it's a very general way to look at things. The rich paid a higher tax margin back then, and now they pay lower taxes, while the US has no way to pay for it. Basically proving that middle class tax cuts and not giving the rich tax breaks helps the economy.
@starbucks3954 The rich did NOT pay a higher tax burden in the 1950`s. They "offered up" far less money TO BE TAXED. Folks with businesses, corporations, those with investment income, capital gains, have MANY legal methods of shifting the money they spend from between income from working and investments, can open an office in Florida, expense it off for summers, etc. There are illegal actions to take as well. When someone burglarizes your home, you move, or make your home more secure.
@starbucks3954 IRS statistics show that the rich paid a higher percent of total taxes, after Bush`s tax cuts. Raise the rates, they will pay less. Sucker.
@starbucks3954 Measuring taxes as a % of GDP, is what CBO does, otherwise inflation distorts figure. There was recession in 2007, but is certainly wasnt caused by tax cuts, as deficit was falling, and tax revenues rising. High tax rates in the 1950`s didnt keep recessions from occurring, there were 2, in 1953 & 1957. Richest 25% of taxpayers paid 83% of ALL inc taxes in 2001, and 86% in 2007. Tax cuts increased tax revenue, and share of taxes paid by rich. Want IRS reference?
@12REASONSTOWORRY dude.... I'm not sure how high school/economics is taught in America, but I learned the shit you don't seem to understand in fucking high school.
Rich guy has 1 mil $, he gets 1.000 - He spends maybe 10% of it.
Poor guy has 200$, he gets 1.000 - He spends 100% of it.
Tax cuts to the rich don't stimulate the eco as much as to the poor. Shit, I'm considered right wing in my country (though America would probably call that party socialist) and I don't even deny that one.
@MiloDaemon Lies. "When tax legislation was signed by Clinton in 1993 -- raising the top tax rate to 39.6 percent from 31 percent -- the saving rate fell from 12.1 percent in the second quarter to 9.5 percent in the first quarter of 1994." Tax cuts signed into law pushing the top rate down to 35 percent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 percent in the second quarter of 2001."
People forget that after WW2, taxes were cut by about 1/3 and spending was cut in half... then we had the biggest year of economic growth in the history of the country. For this douche to say cutting taxes doesn't help the economy is ridiculous. The problem with the bill passing the tax cuts, is there are NO spending cuts. In fact, they just piled-up more spending on the tax cuts. Really, though, these are not even tax cuts... it's just taxes staying the same. Since when is that a tax cut? O_o
I assume you meant conflicting. No, not really. I don't believe what our schools teach us, about how WW2 (which was a cost to the people) somehow got us out of the depression. Sure, it solved unemployment... but hiring people to go fight in another country can cure unemployment, it just costs a lot. When the war was over, spending was cut in half and taxes were reduced over-all by about 1/3. If war causes real economic growth, then we should be booming right now.
Shame on the greedy selfish rich and well to do for they are poor at heart. They have more then enough but they want even more. Not willing to help America and her citizenes. They will pay for their greed, for GOD is watching over them.
@bestwayusa1 the Bible, in "1 Samuel 8:15; 16, 17" says the Govt (King) will take 10%, ( rich WISH it was only 10%!), and you we be just servants to govt. "And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants."
@scipscon Netherlands has only 16 million people. It has a GDP ( PPP) of $39,000 annual, the US has 310 million, and GDP (PPP) of $46,000. You are insignificant, irrelevant.
@luvcheney1 oh well, have fun on a sinking ship then. I guess i'll have to move to canada when this country implodes, seeing as apparently the only solution is to do nothing.
Cenk Uygur said that making the rich pay 90 percent (like in the 1950s) is better, basically because Americans lived better then. Well, at that time 80 percent of health expenditures did not came from any level of the government. Anyway, is not a valid argument. They paid 90 percent because of the WWII debt. Today, in this global economy, overtaxing those who invest and/or produce is suicidal.
90% is indeed way too high, but you have to consider the cause of the economic boom of the 1950's. There was a huge increase in consumer spending following the end of WW2 because America's soldiers came home to spend their war wages on new homes and a settled way of life. I.e, money they got directly from the government, coupled with a slew of new industrial avenues and technologies which were initially made possible through government war projects.
@11111110 War is not a test of bravery, or military abilities. It is a test of which economy can produce enough to destroy the rest. That was us. The economy won the war, not Govt spending. All our enemies had govts trying to spend the maximum as well.
We were still in the mires of the great depression going into the war, so the economy was hardly in the exemplary state you say it was in. In fact, the high unemployment is what made the shift into wartime so easy, there were millions of Americans looking to get those new government jobs either in the munitions factories or in the military.
But if you're going to say that government spending didn't build all those tanks and ships and weapons, well thats just crazy.
@11111110 The Govt must TAKE from private sector, in order to spend. Sure, Govt spending built the tanks, but the economy had to produce the wealth, so it could be diverted to tanks. Govt can only move existing capital around. We won the war because our economy had more wealth. Every enemy nation was bleeding their economies as well. Our economy was bigger, we could divert more capital than they could.
Right. The wealthy in America had deep pockets, even during the poor economic times of the 30's. Since then the definition of "wealthy" in America has increased exponentially. While middle class American income has remained the same over the past four decades, the disparity between them and the upper-class has increased tenfold. We are not facing a lack of capital.
Though its amazing how much Americans were able to prosper in the 50's, even with taxes at 70%.
@11111110 Federal Reserve pushes int rates low, which discourages savings, encourages debt. Federal tax policies punish work, production and investing, while rewarding debt with breaks for home ownership. Federal Social Security, Medicare for the old does NOT accumulate assets for those who pay in, just burns assets up as we go along. Federal policy pays people in many ways when not being productive. With all these perverse incentives, loss of wealth is inevitable, for those who listen to govt.
@11111110 Social Security & MediCare would be illegal, if they were private sector plans. Petirement plans, they have to be funded, in the private sector. That means WEALTH is accumulating, as you pay in. In SS system, WEALTH is not accumulating, it is being spent. The SS Trust fund is tiny, compared to total liabilities, and even so, the fund is required to be lent to the Treasury, and spent. Private med ins is collected yearly, balancing yearly, or coming into balance with rate changes.
@11111110 Labor is taxed at 15.3% for Soc Sec & MediCare, applying that to a 40 yr working career (25-65), at $30,000/ yr, at 6% interest is about $700,000. Inflation would affect the wage, and int rate, so it is a fair estimate, and over the last 40 yrs, the avg returns of the S&P 500 stock index was over 10%, reinvesting dividends. Perhaps you may make over $600/ wk ( $30K/ yr), so perhaps YOU could be way above millionaire, instead of getting $1200 month, for AVG of 13 yrs for a male.
That is, assuming the stock market remains stable. It'd be real unfortunate if anyone tried to get their retirement money out of the stock market at the time of the housing market collapse, wouldn't it?
@11111110 The S&P 500 level is about the same as it was in 2001, BUT dividends averaged about 6% over the last 10 years, SO, your worry just proves you are not aware of reality. Saving for retirement, and drawing down those funds is a gradual savings on the way up, and down, over 40 years, or more, and so the last 10 years, a bad time is still not a problem, with the numbers I gave you. Only LIBS think volatility dooms SAVING. Conservatives just keep plugging away, getting richer, over time.
@11111110 Most voters in ALL income groups voted for Obama, but his BIGGEST margins were among the poor. All Income groups grew for Dems grew subsantantially 2004- 2008. ( they won) But, I just said conservatives keep on plugging. I see/ hear Libs every day around here just whining, begging, for Obama to steal someone else`s income, and give it to them. So, poorer Republicans are NOT waiting for handouts, stupid, according to your comments.
Wrong again, the majority of Americans in the $100,000-$200,000 income bracket voted for McCain
And my comments weren't meant to imply that poorer republicans are waiting for handouts. I was just dispelling your misconception, that "Conservatives just keep plugging away, getting richer, over time". When in reality, most rich successful people aren't conservative, and most conservatives aren't rich.
Let´s see. In Switzerland the federal top bracket tax on personal income is 11.5 percent; 8.5 percent for corporations. And people are not starving. In fact they have the lowest poverty, crime and unemployment rates in Europe
Umm "56% of the American people want everyone taxed the same"... Right now the middle class pays 15% and the high earners pay 45%. So that means most of America wants the Rich to pay less...
Stop putting on idiots and put a conservative on that knows how to argue a point...the facts are right there. Seriously watch it again.
@cchanderson no dipshit, what he means is people should have to pay an equal percent of their paycheck/salary to the govt. Right now we middle class citizens are taxed a higher percent of our paychecks/salaries than those rich-ass mother fuckers do. I didn't realize that in order to pay for our debt we have to reduce our self to overtaxing the poor and undertaxing the rich. besides, it doesn't matter, majority wins, dont like it leave. Have fun finding a conservative nation shittier than ours.
@cchanderson your obviously a rich fuck. Again, your outnumbered, everyone wants bush's shitty tax cuts to expire. Time for your precious "richies" to pay up.
A) Never said i was an expert, quite the contrary, my statement under-stated my knowledge. B) It's not foolish, Reaganomics failed, even Reagan with his runaway spending and tax cuts couldn't pull it off, he raised National Debt by 20.6% of GDP in 8 years, a massive failure. C) I am an Australian so i don't know what you're rambling about with your "Freedom the USA provides"... what, is this some kind of Team America Line? As if mate, your countries a joke.
@ArachEye i agree 100% with u man, people in this country need to realize every1's laughing at us. also reaganomics were a joke, it ruined our economy then and caused mass inflation as did Bush's tax cuts. Its kinda sad that bush senior was the one who got it right by RAISING the taxes for the rich, and clinton sealed the deal. We need another clinton, its kinda disappointing that obama gives in to the repubs so much.
@Andy180084 Mass inflation? That was when Reagan was elected. Volker raised interest rates to over 20%, and inflation was eliminated. Oil fell from $50 barrel in 1980 to $10 barrel in 1999. Atlantic Richfeild ( Arco, was near bankruptcy, thats why BP bought them.) I guess you are unaware that Capital Gains taxes were cut by Clinton from 28% to 20? Republicans under Gingrich got control of Congress after only 2 Clinton years, he could not DO ANYTHING LIBERAL. Stupid.
@luvcheney1 i dunno where you get your "research" but most people know that bush sr. and clinton raised taxes to all time highs, and surprise surprise economic surplus. i guess textbooks and wikipedia better change their data. reagonomics were pathetic and caused a recession, then bush and cheney looking out for their butt buddies in big business tried it again, and started a fucktarded war to go with it.
@Andy180084 Top personal tax rates under Clinton were 39.6%. Surprise, surprise, the top personal tax rates of the 1950`s were 91%. Clinton also cut the capital gains tax rate ( for the rich) from 28% to 20%. Surprise, surprise. Taxes were a mixed bag under Clinton. Are you even AWARE recessions and expansions affect budgets? Are you aware budget surplus/ deficits have 2 parts, tax revenue, AND spending? Tax revenue NOW is Low, because of economy, not tax rates.
@Andy180084 As for the US imploding in the future, Europe is imploding NOW. You Libs always have bragged about Europe, with its wonderful Social Democracies. The EU has 60% more people than the US, and 6% more production. How efficient.
@ArachEye i agree 100% with u man, people in this country need to realize every1's laughing at us. also reaganomics were a joke, it ruined our economy then and caused mass inflation as did Bush's tax cuts. Its kinda sad that bush senior was the one who got it right by RAISING the taxes for the rich, and clinton sealed the deal. We need another clinton, its kinda disappointing that obama gives in to the repubs so much.
LOL!! "with higher tax cuts they will be able to hire more people to clean their houses". is this video serious? i feel like the black guy is an undercover liberal trying to sabotage the conservatives. That statement was rediculous!!!
@Andy180084 Every rich person DOES something with his money. Fed statistic show they spend aT LEAST 88%. If he cant pay his call girl $10,000 a night, she will not be "stimulating" the economy, leaving a hole in the economy. It never is a question of whether he can do without the money, but taxing it away harms someone ELSE. Obama gives it to someone, its "stimulative", but Libs are too stupid to see that is balanced out by a whore not tipping the doorman, or supporting her little bastards.
lol!!! "just b/c u make $250,000 a year it doesnt mean your wealthy". I almost died when i heard that!! that is loaded, super rich. They average family makes like $50 grand a year, again the rich pay their fair share. i hate republicans, people should revolt.
@Andy180084 If you are at the median income, the 50% below you pays 3% of all income tax. For the math challenged, the top 50% pay 97%. Thats FAIR? The top 10% pay 70%! The % the rich paid after Bush cut taxes went UP! Lowering tax rates increase the share of all taxes paid by the rich. They will pay LESS, if you raise them. IRS statistics prove this.
@luvcheney1 Federal income taxes are only the tip of the pie. Federal taxes are paid on MANY products everyone must buy. SS,Medicare, and unemployment taxes are only paid on w2 wages which is not the way the rich earn their incomes.
To play the percentage game using only federal income tax is misleading at best and close to outright lying. I have no problem with differing opinions on tax fairness but your comments are BS
@finerbiner The largest source of Federal Revenue is the income tax, at 45% of total. The second largest source is Payroll taxes, ( Social Security) at 36%. Many rich are paid at w-2 wages, and pay SS taxes on that. Many rich are in business, and pay 15.3%, double what workers pay. Lawyers, Doctors, Hedge funds mamagers, pay the 15.3% on Medicare and Social security. As there
@luvcheney1 I own a small business. My wife owns a small business. We do well. You sir are the one who is full of it. I must pay myself a W2 wage, that is true. The majority of my income is pass through K1 income that is subject only to federal income tax. Federal taxes are paid on every utility, at the pump and other sourced. These taxes are not prorated in any way. The difference between you and I is that although we both probably do well financially, I'm grateful and you are a selfish ass
Respond to this video...Furthermore, the truly rich make there money in the markets and pay only the federal taxes their accounting teams can not get them out of. Corporation's job the system to the point where the majority of corporations pay zero.
You are just a liar who uses statistics. Dime a dozen, so stop patting yourself on the back. this country was greatest when we had a solid middle class, and will continue to decline until we stop ravaging it.
@luvcheney1 You need economics 101. Employers match what employees pay and that money is part of what is called "burden" in accounting. If the employer did not have to pay it on behalf of the employee, their wage would be higher. So the result is the same as the self employment tax.
The result of the last 30 yrs is that the US now has the highest disparity between rich and poor. Yet all you want to do is give hand jobs to the oligarchs.
@finerbiner The richest 1 percent pay 27.5 percent of the combined burden, the top 20 percent pay 72 percent, and the bottom 20 percent pay just 0.4 percent. One reason that the disparity in tax shares is so large is that Americans in the bottom quintile who have jobs get reimbursed for some or all of their 15 percent payroll tax through the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a fairly efficient poverty-abatement program. fineriner, you are just full of it.
@finerbiner It’s true that the distribution of taxes is somewhat more equally divided when payroll taxes are accounted for—but the change is surprisingly small. Payroll taxes of 15 percent are charged on the first dollar of income earned by a worker, and most of the tax is capped at an income of just below $100,000. The Tax Policy Center, run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, recently studied payroll and income taxes paid by each income group.
Respond to this video... The richest 1 percent pay 27.5 percent of the combined burden, the top 20 percent pay 72 percent, and the bottom 20 percent pay just 0.4 percent. One reason that the disparity in tax shares is so large is that Americans in the bottom quintile who have jobs get reimbursed for some or all of their 15 percent payroll tax through the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a fairly efficient poverty-abatement program. fineriner, you are just full of it.
@Andy180084 The top 10% pay 70% of all taxes, the bottom 90% pay 30%. I agree with you, the middle class and poor are not paying their fair share. Funny when Libs say it is so moral for the rich to pay even more, when the top 50% pay 97%, and the bottom 50% pay 3%. It is only moral, when they pay zero % income taxes.
@luvcheney1 the rich are grossly over-payed. There will come a time when the privileged 10% of the population are earning 90% of the nations wealth, just as it was over a hundred years ago. It is pathetic that the already wealthy should ever deserve EVEN MORE money than us middle class citizens. Repubs need to stop sucking rich guys dicks, or eventually people will wake up and revolt.
@Andy180084 I think you ought to make your next computer purchase without Windows installed. You make Bill Gates rich. Use Linux. Buffet owns shares in Coke, wells fargo, Kraft foods, WalMart, Costco, Nestle, etc, so be sure not to do business there either. WE voluntarily make choices that enrich businesses that are pleasing us. Make your own Mayonaise, cheese
@luvcheney1 I actually use linux on 2 of my computers.... and i would give money to gates, he is at least a philanthropist. i don't understand why repubs cant give up just a tad more of their income to improve the economy? are they really that selfish?
@Andy180084 If I pull a gun, take $200 from your wallet, and go spend it, did I stimulate the economy? Sure, the hooker I gave it to is happy, so is her pimp, but they "stimulate" the economy with my cash, just like YOU were going to do. Explain how moving money from one pile to the next helps? Especially considering the rich got that way by doing something the market obviously WANTS. The folks govt gives money to isnt doing ANYTHING people want. If they were, they wouldnt be poor.
At first I was thinking "Wow, that black guy is gay, he worked for Bush's campaign? Cloooseeeeeet!"
Then he started speaking and I realized he's just a black dude who knows there's a lot of money in it for him if he does the bidding for the rich guys, because they need some more color other than pasty white and old grey.
I mean, discrediting the taxation-poll because people want smaller govt? How's about let the Bush tax cuts expire, AND reduce federal waste?
@MyTemporaryAccount88 Blacks should be for the Democrats, and on their knees, begging Obama for crumbs. Thats where their place in society really is. There, now I am just like Clinton, and Jesse Jackson, and you too.
@luvcheney1 Nope, you're most definitely not like me, nor Clinton, nor Jackson.
This may come as a shock to you, but what conservatives tell you about liberals isn't all true. Just as with every political position, you have your sheep, you have your crazies, etc.
However, I'm a pragmatist who seeks the solutions that are a) moral, b) help build a good society, & c) benefit the economy. Luckily, the CBO & others find that progressive solutions follow all 3 rules, like the public option.
@MyTemporaryAccount88 Orzog, Dir of CBO, Obamas Budget chief, wrote this"between 2003 and 2006, federal
receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the
actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth. receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent in 2003 to 18.4 percent
in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percentage points." 2002, top rate at 38.6, from 39.6, 2003 rate went to 35%, from 38.6%, this is why 2003 is year to check from.
@luvcheney1 So you're saying Reaganomics work if you consider the fact that the taxes were different in 2001-2002 & 2003 on? Yeah I'm sorry but that proves nothing. My conclusions come from numbers spanning much further back, different countries, many different factors (social mobility, investment, savings rates etc), and oh yeah, recent analysis on things like how much things stimulate the economy, where funny enough, both the CBO & Moodys rated personal income tax cuts very, very low indeed.
@MyTemporaryAccount88 Your numbers? The numbers in your head, the ones you do not share? The fact was, personal rates were 39.6% under Clinton, and the Bush cuts of 2001 only dropped that rate 1/2% a year in 2001 and 2002. So, in 2002 it was 38.6%, and 2003 went to 35%. Thats why 2003 is significant, rates dropped 3.6% at once, rather that 1% over 2 years. Remember, the Dems have been claiming that cut caused the deficit, but revenue increased. Share your numbers to prove your point.
@luvcheney1 Nice, you had to throw in the "in your head" bit, let's just throw respect out the window. I said "my conclusions", those are in my head, yes.
The reason that's irrelevant is because 2000 was a shitty decade (on multiple fronts), the last 30 years (Reaganomics-era) show an interesting trend, former Reagan officials speaking out, comparisons of westernized nations, etc. Those are things I consider.
If you want sources I need to send a personal message.
If the people who earn more than $250,000 want the "proportionally" ADDITIONAL tax cuts (10% extra), they should have to pay "proportionally" higher taxes on Social Security. Currently, everyone pays 6.2% on earnings up to $106,800. Everyone who earns MORE pays proportionally LESS than those of us who make less than that amount and consequently pay on 100% of that 6.2% tax. Otherwise, the wealthiest should only be allowed to collect a proportionally lower amount of benefits. It's equitable.
@2010GOP True, but the same can be said about other goods and services that are paid for with tax dollars. Why is this argument only ever made for SS taxes?
@mrbhave: I made the "argument" for SS taxes because that's what your comment is about. And "the rich" do not use more Govt services than the middle-class & poor so I'm not understanding that argument.
@2010GOP My point is precisely that the uber rich NEVER get their money's worth when it comes to paying taxes, when viewed proportionally. But they are given special consideration when it comes to paying SS taxes. I'm not given a choice to pay less taxes if I collect fewer services. Why should the same philosophical argument be allowed for the wealthiest among us?
@luvcheney1 Taxes are at low rates. People making over $250k want a graduated refund when it comes to the Bush tax cuts, but they don't want to pay graduated SS taxes. I can't claim a refund on my taxes if I don't use the services for which I'm paying. Why should the uber rich get an EXTRA 10% off of their taxes? They are alreadying getting a tax cut. And still, it's not enough. You're being boondoggled by the GOP to protect the uber rich, while they gives us all the shaft. Well done.
@mrbhave There is a maximum payout on SS benefits already. That is why there is a max amount on what is collected. MediCare already goes beyond that, but the care is same. You dont want an insurance program at all, you just want SS to be welfare. I`m sure that additional taxes in the US will not encourage the rich to earn their money outside the US. There is no outsourcing.
You do realize that there is a maximum amount of return on investment for EVERY service provided by the government, don't you? How do you know my position on SS? If I had my way, I'd set up a non-profit, privately funded plan that the government couldn't touch. Customers would be equal shareholders, similar to credit unions. There wouldn't be any need for advertising or million-dollar executives. Sorry, dude, but if I have to pay 100% on all of my taxes, so should the wealthy.
@mrbhave You want Fed 39.6% tax on the rich, 9.3% more in Ca, and then the 15.3% as well, if the rich person is self employed, taking his business income to live. That is 64.2%, I assume SDI ought to be included as well? You actually think that there will be no reaction by the rich, when allowed to keep 36 cents of every dollar? In the 1950`s, top rate was 91%, and % of tax revenue to govt was SAME as in Bush term 2001-2007 top rate 35%. MORE income was offered up to be taxed at low rates
@luvcheney1 Legitimate small business owners who actually fall into this bracket account for 2-3% of the top 2%. Your argument doesn't make sense from a logical or a mathematical view point. Bush (and other republicans) never figured out that the equation calls for lowering taxes AND reducing spending, something Bush couldn't seem to figure out. I don't think ANY of the current tax schemes in this country are fair. But the rich are ALREADY getting a tax cut like the rest of us.
Since Social Security Taxes were used to pay for the Iraq War - we should make it a "fair tax".
I have to send in about 15% of income into the SSA. It is so wrong for a total asshole like Dick Cheney who got us into the mess to only pay .00001% in SS tax.
@DillonDee1 Social Security is a bankrupt insurance program, with benefits paid based on what you put in, up to a point. IF the Govt wants to tax it up to infinite income, it would need to pay benefits up to an infinite monthly payment as well. It does NOT. Furthermore, Cheney has mostly investment income, based on returns on capital, which even the most Liberal politicians do not want taxed at personal income tax levels. Please explain how destroying CAPITAL, ( which you imply here), is good.
@luvcheney1 Given life in the U.S. before social security, and after, with no hesitation I would choose the latter. Soc Sec has been a great program for millions of America - we are all better off for it. Hardly bankrupt, in fact the U.S. Gov't has been borrowed over $1Trillion from Social Security for the General Fund, hence the "Trust Funds."
In the long term, some modifications needed for Soc Sec - but the big problem is Medicare. That's the big elephant in the room.
@PeasantPundit Life got better because of technical progress and freedom. If you take the taxes from SS and Medicare, of a Guy with only $30,000 a yr income, and invest at 6% for a 40 yr working life, there would be $700,0000. We pay a $million, for $1200 a month, for a few years. Wow, thats great! BTW, the return of the S&P 500, was 11% over the last 40 years, including the crash, not the 6% I stated, and inflation would drive stock values, and wages as well.
@PeasantPundit INCLUDING the SS Trust Fund money, the SS System is $17 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. The Trust Fund was borrowed, as you stated, but it does not exist. When SS demnds the paltry $1 trillion back, the Treasury will need more taxes, or the Fed to print it. Perhaps you think donating a $million, for $15,000 a year is good, when just a reasonable return would be $60,000 a year, not even touching your principal?
@luvcheney1 Reagan and Dem Congress raised SS taxes, then "borrowed" the money to pay for Personal Income Tax cuts, in effect raising taxes on the middle class and lowering them for the wealthy.
Nothing works in a vacuum. You can't assume everyone could simply invest in S&P and future return would pan out. In fact, all that 401K $ captive in market is now coming home to roost. For years money went in, now boomers need to withdraw- what does that do for stock prices?
@PeasantPundit There are "ETF`s: on the S&P 500. The last 40 years made 11%, when dividends are reinvested, I used 6% as an example. The last 10 years have seen the S&P 500 values stagnant, but dividends are now 5%. ( P?E ratio avg). 6% is reasonable. Boomers will NOT sell that much, they have turned over the $1 million each to the Govt, who spent it. Foreign capital can come, and China/India have growing wealth.
@PeasantPundit By law, SS surplus goes to the Treasury, offsetting deficits. This always is the case, and under Clinton also occurred. We are told Clinton ran surpluses, but when you examine total nation debt during his term, it ROSE each year. It rose, because he also spent the surpluses, which you like reporting on Reagan only, because your goal is your agenda, not truth.
@luvcheney1@luvcheney1 Reagan and Dem Congress raised SS taxes, then "borrowed" the money to pay for Personal Income Tax cuts, in effect raising taxes on the middle class and lowering them for the wealthy.
Nothing works in a vacuum. You can't assume everyone could simply invest in S&P and future return would pan out. In fact, all that 401K $ captive in market is now coming home to roost. For years money went in, now boomers need to withdraw- what does that do for stock prices
@luvcheney1 -- you are right to call SS an "Insurance program" but then you contradict yourself by saying "benefits are based on what you put in".
That is mostly not true. I've had relatives who never contributed a dime & collected many thousands & have had relatives who contributed many thousands that never collected a dime.
Let's be fair -- let's put a "fair tax" on SS & have everyone put in the same %.
@DillonDee1 Read again the sentence, I put a qualifier on it. "with benefits paid based on what you put in, up to a point." The already dead got MORE than what they paid in, and the retired of tomorrow will get less. "Fair" would be if the guy who puts 20 times more in, gets 20 times more out. They DO adjust your payment, loosely based on what goes in. Your Idea is obviously just having the wealthy pay for the pensions of everyone else. Another 15.3% tax on rich? 45% isnt enough?
@luvcheney1@luvcheney1 Reagan and Dem Congress raised SS taxes, then "borrowed" the money to pay for Personal Income Tax cuts, in effect raising taxes on the middle class and lowering them for the wealthy.
Nothing works in a vacuum. You can't assume everyone could simply invest in S&P and future return would pan out. In fact, all that 401K $ captive in market is now coming home to roost. For years money went in, now boomers need to withdraw- what does that do for stock prices
On Nov 2nd "we the people" spoke. If you raise taxes on anybody, you will be voted out. If you want to lower the defecit....CUT SPENDING! If you want to spark the economy CUT TAXES!!! Any questions?
Throughout most of our counry's history the richest 10% have paid most of the taxes.
That is certainly not true today.
When you factor in ALL taxes - not just Income tax, but also SOCIAL SECURITY TAX, SALES TAX, PROPERTY TAX, GASOLINE TAX, LIQ TAX, CIG TAX, CABLE TAX, ELEC TAX, REGISTRATIONS, TOLLS, FEES, FINES, ETC - you quickly see that most of the costs of running gov't today falls on the lower & middle classes.
@DillonDee1 Of all revenue, State and local is only 1.2 Trill, and 2.7 Trill is Federal. Of the 2.7 trill Federal, they gave .4 Trill back to the states! The bottom 50% of federal taxpayers pay 3% of the federal income tax, which is the biggest source of federal income, 45%. Worker payroll is only 18%, and that is based on a % up to $106,000. Corp tax is 12%, business payroll match is 18%. In Ca, sales tax is 18%, but rich buy more stuff, property tax is 12%, rich live in more costly homes,
@luvcheney1 The "rich" buy more stuff with a lower % of their income than the middle/lower classes, who spend most of their doe for day to day existence. The rich have many options for discretionary investing, including Communist China. Communist China & "Socialist" Germany enjoy huge trade surpluses with strong centralized governments - in the case of China, a strong arm government.
The U.S. needs import tariffs, lower corp. taxes, higher personal taxes.
@PeasantPundit FACT is that the rich spend between 88% and 97% of their incomes, depending on the part of the business cycle. 88% spent is WORST case. Money invested is not bad, because even if it is in China, the Capital gain and dividends accrue HERE, and are taxable. So, they pay tax on their income, save some, and pay on investment proceeds later. Even IF in China! China has become MORE CAPITALIST, less Govt interference since 1977, thats WHY it is now better. Germany rejects Obama`s ideas.
@PeasantPundit Kansas City Fed Reserve says 41% of stocks were foreign in US. They also state if looking at RISK and RETURNS, investors here ought to have 60% foreign. That means investors in US are biased, toward the US. Money is invested abroad, because it MAKES more. Our 39% corp tax avg, vs 24% of OECD, regulations, environment, lawsuits, etc, ALL cause capital to flee. Still, 59% will be invested here, and all PROCEEDS are taxed here. If you dislike capital fleeing, improve profits HERE
republicans in the house today said that if they can't get the bonus they want for the richest people in the country, for income over $250,000 a year, then they don't want tax cuts for anybody! republicans want everybody's taxes to go up on new year's eve, unless they can get what they want, which is a specific tax cut for income over $250,000
Actually, the ultra-richest people in the country don't pay any taxes. That's thanks to the Democrats, mainly. The ones you're talking about are a few-tiers below them.
@LibertaerUeberAlles You obviously have no clue what's going on. republicans are holding these tax cuts for the middle class hostage, demanding an extra tax cut of $700 billion worth of bailout for millionaires and billionaires.
@LibertaerUeberAlles Meaning that if you add $700 billion to the deficit to pay for tax cuts for rich people, you've added $700 billion to that deficit thing. which is not a way of making that deficit thing smaller. thing plus 700 billion does not equal smaller thing.
Right, but you stated that the tax cuts benefit billionaires. However, that's incorrect. You don't understand how it works. Billionaires (as well as top-end millionaires) have their income-producing investments in tax-exempt 'foundations' and 'non-profits,' so they won't pay any extra taxes if there's a tax increase.
You see, under your plan, only small-cheese "rich" who will pay more. The big-cheese rich will only become richer (which is y they support your high-tax plan!).
The only "incredible idiocy" is on your part, for not doing minimal research into 501(c)(3) exempt organizations. Do you really think Mr. Micro$oft would be paying more in taxes after an increase?
If that doesn't convince you, consider that, even in absence of 'foundations,' millionaires and billionaires would simply switch out of income investments and move into, e.g., growth equities. Or they'd sit on real estate for a while -- at least until taxes come down again.
@LibertaerUeberAlles I don't really get your point. Are you trying to say that the Bush Tax Cuts should be extended because rich people have tax loop holes? These are taxes on personal income. Not business income.
No, I'm saying that federal income taxes should be repealed, completely, because they're part of a system designed by the ultra-rich to benefit the ultra-rich. Don't expect any extra tax monies to be distributed to "the poor." If you pay more, then it'll just embolden the ultra-rich channel more to themselves. Here's an interesting vid:
@LibertaerUeberAlles the democrats' position on this has been really clear for a long time. barack obama said a ton of times that the bush tax cuts should be extended for the first quarter million dollars of income. but above that, no. we cannot afford it. and it is not good for the economy. the first quarter million dollars of income, yes, above that, no. the democrats drew that line in the sand. they drew it before the session of congress started. they have drawn it a million times over.
Your tax increases do nothing more than centralize economic/political power for the wealthiest people. That's why billionaires always support tax increases. Maybe you should google:
"Why do billionaires tend to be Democrats?"
There are much better ways to do it. Why not trim-down the mortgage interest deduction, instead? Then capital will go into productive enterprises instead of into luxury homes (which raise housing costs for all of us, due to market skewing).
@ luvcheney1 I know that RT isn't a popular news channel with you lot, but I chose this because it shows Germany's position in this World. Take a careful look at this and you will understand why a GOOD and REALISTIC solution needs to be found quickly about the USA's debt (it's quite serious in mine too, recent budget cuts will hurt the middle class harshly).
@ luvcheney1 I know that RT isn't a popular news channel with you lot, but I chose this because it shows Germany's position in this World. Take a careful look at this and you will understand why a GOOD and REALISTIC solution needs to be found quickly about the USA's debt (it's quite serious in mine too, recent budget cuts will hurt the middle class harshly).
The USA's debt/capita is 41825$ (2010) ; GDP/capita = 46442$ (2009)
The Canada's debt/capita is 16193$ (2010) ; GDP/capita =37840$ (2009)
The debt of the USA is VERY serious, every individual in the USA owes 60% more than the average Joe in Canada, but if USA stops going to war and rebuilding everything, everywhere it goes and start managing it's national
budget more carefully, things could improve...BUT SOMETHING MUST BE DONE TO FIX THIS otherwise, we'll all going to the gutter! Look at EU.
@DillonDee1 Yeah... Can't count on the cleaning lady at 5:34 working for the guy who makes 200k$ to bail us out ! She doesn't even make the required 46442$/year required to stay even. That Republican adviser is thick as a brick and very bad at mathematics...
I gave you the numbers. Even if the USA and Canada were to merge tomorrow, there wouldn't be enough money to pay that kind of debt ! So, yeah income tax cuts for the rich MUST stop ! War mongering MUST stop also ! Just saying...
@Juicexlx In the 1950`s, the top personal rate was 91%, corp rate 51%, and from 1951-1960, the govt got 17.3% of GDP in taxes. During Bush`s term, 2001-2007, govt got 17.4% of GDP in taxes, with a personal rate of 35%, and corp rate of 35%. Lowering taxes in the real world, over 6 decades, is reality. Result has been no real change at all in the Govts share of GDP from taxes. Yet, YOU LIBS think you will get revenue? 91% rates got you the same, Stupid!
@DillonDee1 Except that when the top rate was 91% the Govt got the same percent of GDP in tax revenue as it did when Bush cut the rate to 35%. Raising the tax rate will cause the rich to take money to spend from capital, which is not taxed at the high levels of income. They will make adjustments. This is why there has been no difference between 91% and 35% tax rates. Want a Federal website with the statistics to prove it? To prove the rich paid a higher % of all taxes, at lower % rates?
@Juicexlx Too bad reality is that military spending is 18.7% of the budget, transfers to people are 60%. Nice to recognize on your part thge US is more productive though. Most Libs think everyone else is.
This has been flagged as spam show
The ultimate "trickle-down" economics is Keynesianism where gov't "stimulates" the economy by giving taxpayer’s money to “special interest groups” in return for their “campaign support”.
The Fed & IRS corrupt crony politicians with power to redistribute, borrow & debase to buy “support” from Unions, “Too Big to Fail” Corporations, the Military-Industrial Complex & Wall Street cartel.
Central Banking = Central Economic Planning Despotism.
Watch: “Statism's Assembly Line” on YouTube
yakyakyak69 9 months ago
look how happy Robert gets @ 4:42 when Cenk says "I love you"
goldenshots 10 months ago
What alot of people don't understand is if they had not extended the tax cuts for the top tax braket, those individuals would still get a tax cut on all income $250,000 and below, and see a tax hike on all income above that.
skinsfanh 1 year ago
Ari smiles like a kid with his first boner
DroppedEntertainment 1 year ago
@philateliceun - in some cases, but if you take for instance the Forbes 400 list the majority of them were born rich (the Walton family of Wallmart fame is a prime example).
Besides that if you are already poor then u need all the money u can just to get by, there is no surpluss to save. ..
SensiStarToaster 1 year ago
What people don't understand is that the rich didn't get rich by spending money but by saving money.
philateliceun 1 year ago
Liberal Democrats hate the rich more than they love economic growth or tax cuts for the middle class. Democrats find it is more emotionally satisfying to punish the wealthy than it is to assist the non-wealthy.
BlackRepublican2010 1 year ago
this dickhead doesnt realize everything else in the world that exists this guy is a white black guy
timetochilli 1 year ago
Cenk is so smart :)
ughzean 1 year ago
The poor man's fallacy = I have more money, I spend more money.....
Yeah, breaking news: that is not how multimillionaires think, they are trying to have money for generations, and they don't shop at Walmart...
s4njuro 1 year ago
The CIA, Pentagon, military and international corporations are too big. We need big govt or no one can handle them. Small govt is just some stupid campaign slogan. Laws are not everything, under funded policies monitoring loopholes put average people like you and me in huge disadvantages.
beancube2010 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Niby ten film fajny ale w żaden sposób nie wpływa na zbiór ilości rzepaku wiec sory ale daje minus:\
ikeni00 1 year ago
Nigga Please.. who exactly is this house negro speaking for other than rich people and CEO's?
ruin3r 1 year ago
they are making trillions!!!!!! every year...collecting back, what we worked for.and in no way giving it back to you, unless u break your fucking arm and got to the social security for help...in this life, i like to save so i can pay for my hospital, instead of paying every month just incase i fucking get sick one day...get a life guys, i loove all of USA, but u guys accpeted hook line and sinker ur authorities as the truth ratehr than the truth as the authority
12REASONSTOWORRY 1 year ago
u think there are 1.5 billion people without electricity or water, and billions without a decent life style...because they are stupid morons???? get a calculator guyysss...if every american gave 5 dollars a year....you would pay your dumb asss services and infrastructure athat is already built by your history...all u gotta do is enjoy it and clean it a bit...how much money do u think thye are making when they colect thosands and millions from the rich..and also over 5 bucks from the poor...??
12REASONSTOWORRY 1 year ago
its the governments way of making u think they cae...why doesnt the government ever build a business and for once MAKE money...instead of COLLECT with force...and yeah with force...dont pay taxes, go to the sahara dessert and wait for them to get you... in the ohter hand, the underwear bomber is sitting on his ass smiling with his maradara rights....
12REASONSTOWORRY 1 year ago
listen smart asses..the nations roads, infrastructure and etc is paid for by specific taxes...u wanna live like denmark? 75% income tax, the people that dont have a job are the happiest ones alive...they are vagabonds lazy asses that get a free check by the government ..who get their check by those who had the brains to start a businees...go to denmark INCOME TAX LOVERS....i dont wanna tax the poor or the rich...get a life bitches, you are the working coommmon people, the government doesnt help
12REASONSTOWORRY 1 year ago
@bubbadankness
What total nonsense you speak income tax for the top bracket aftern ww2 was well over 70 percent until the mid 70's, the exact opposite of your claim.
Eg. 1936 to 1939 was 79 percent 1952 1953 was 92, 1988 -1990 was 28
Now its at 35 percent
So dont talk shit.
Source: wikipedia [Income_tax_in_the_United_States - History_of_federal_income_tax]
SensiStarToaster 1 year ago
for the top bracket? after ww2?
Back in the days of WW2, almost NOBODY paid an income tax. Remember Joe Louis? I wasn't talking shit, was just making a point... Go wiki that
watch?v=LMmw3IolqJE
bubbadankness 1 year ago
@SensiStarToaster Gee, just go research the percent of GDP Fed Govt received in taxes, during the 1950`s, compared to 2001- 2008 with Bush. 17.3% in the 1950`s, 17.4% with Bush. That is just facts, numbers, reality of the real- life test of tax cutting. Since taxes remains similiar, that PROVES tax cuts cause more economic activity to be taxed.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
what kind of dumb turd CANNOT UNDERSTAND that if you lower taxes, you grow the economy...who the fuck doesnt get that???
12REASONSTOWORRY 1 year ago
@12REASONSTOWORRY What kind of fucking idiot doesnt UNDERSTAND the nations infrastructure and services are paid by taxes. Also that lower taxes for the rich isnt effective in growing the economy when compared to lowering taxes for the middle class. Also, what kind of fucking idiot doesnt get that lower taxes for the rich has to be paid for, and thus the middle class will have to do it with social security being cut - thus destroying the economy eventually, when the US falls deeper into dept.
starbucks3954 1 year ago
@starbucks3954 research the percent of GDP Fed Govt received in taxes, during the 1950`s, compared to 2001- 2008 with Bush. 17.3% in the 1950`s, 17.4% with Bush. That is just facts, numbers, reality of the real- life test of tax cutting. Since taxes remains similiar, that PROVES tax cuts cause more economic activity to be taxed.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 Except the 1950's saw amazing economic growth, and the 2007 saw a terrible recession. So nice comparison? Also, the tax GDP doesn't measure what portion of society paid what taxes, it's a very general way to look at things. The rich paid a higher tax margin back then, and now they pay lower taxes, while the US has no way to pay for it. Basically proving that middle class tax cuts and not giving the rich tax breaks helps the economy.
starbucks3954 1 year ago
@starbucks3954 The rich did NOT pay a higher tax burden in the 1950`s. They "offered up" far less money TO BE TAXED. Folks with businesses, corporations, those with investment income, capital gains, have MANY legal methods of shifting the money they spend from between income from working and investments, can open an office in Florida, expense it off for summers, etc. There are illegal actions to take as well. When someone burglarizes your home, you move, or make your home more secure.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@starbucks3954 IRS statistics show that the rich paid a higher percent of total taxes, after Bush`s tax cuts. Raise the rates, they will pay less. Sucker.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@starbucks3954 Measuring taxes as a % of GDP, is what CBO does, otherwise inflation distorts figure. There was recession in 2007, but is certainly wasnt caused by tax cuts, as deficit was falling, and tax revenues rising. High tax rates in the 1950`s didnt keep recessions from occurring, there were 2, in 1953 & 1957. Richest 25% of taxpayers paid 83% of ALL inc taxes in 2001, and 86% in 2007. Tax cuts increased tax revenue, and share of taxes paid by rich. Want IRS reference?
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@12REASONSTOWORRY dude.... I'm not sure how high school/economics is taught in America, but I learned the shit you don't seem to understand in fucking high school.
Rich guy has 1 mil $, he gets 1.000 - He spends maybe 10% of it.
Poor guy has 200$, he gets 1.000 - He spends 100% of it.
Tax cuts to the rich don't stimulate the eco as much as to the poor. Shit, I'm considered right wing in my country (though America would probably call that party socialist) and I don't even deny that one.
MiloDaemon 1 year ago
Comment removed
12REASONSTOWORRY 1 year ago
@MiloDaemon Lies. "When tax legislation was signed by Clinton in 1993 -- raising the top tax rate to 39.6 percent from 31 percent -- the saving rate fell from 12.1 percent in the second quarter to 9.5 percent in the first quarter of 1994." Tax cuts signed into law pushing the top rate down to 35 percent, the wealthy boosted savings. The saving rate climbed to 2.8 percent in the first quarter of 2002 from minus 2 percent in the second quarter of 2001."
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@MiloDaemon So, the rich spend from 102% of income to 88% of income, and you state they spend only 10%, stupid.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@12REASONSTOWORRY
I believe that used to be called Voodoo Economics
now, people just call it stupid.
So have fun with that
OdinLowe 1 year ago
People forget that after WW2, taxes were cut by about 1/3 and spending was cut in half... then we had the biggest year of economic growth in the history of the country. For this douche to say cutting taxes doesn't help the economy is ridiculous. The problem with the bill passing the tax cuts, is there are NO spending cuts. In fact, they just piled-up more spending on the tax cuts. Really, though, these are not even tax cuts... it's just taxes staying the same. Since when is that a tax cut? O_o
bubbadankness 1 year ago
@bubbadankness You are conflating cause with effect (in regards to your WW2 comment)
You are correct in saying that keeping low taxes AND having massive spending will not somehow get the US out of debt...
The American government has officially become paralyzed by bi-partisanism. Grats....
OdinLowe 1 year ago
I assume you meant conflicting. No, not really. I don't believe what our schools teach us, about how WW2 (which was a cost to the people) somehow got us out of the depression. Sure, it solved unemployment... but hiring people to go fight in another country can cure unemployment, it just costs a lot. When the war was over, spending was cut in half and taxes were reduced over-all by about 1/3. If war causes real economic growth, then we should be booming right now.
bubbadankness 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Shame on the greedy selfish rich and well to do for they are poor at heart. They have more then enough but they want even more. Not willing to help America and her citizenes. They will pay for their greed, for GOD is watching over them.
bestwayusa1 1 year ago
@bestwayusa1 the Bible, in "1 Samuel 8:15; 16, 17" says the Govt (King) will take 10%, ( rich WISH it was only 10%!), and you we be just servants to govt. "And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants."
luvcheney1 1 year ago
pay your fucking depts!!!!!!!! Amerikkka
scipscon 1 year ago
@scipscon Netherlands has only 16 million people. It has a GDP ( PPP) of $39,000 annual, the US has 310 million, and GDP (PPP) of $46,000. You are insignificant, irrelevant.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 oh well, have fun on a sinking ship then. I guess i'll have to move to canada when this country implodes, seeing as apparently the only solution is to do nothing.
Andy180084 1 year ago
Cenk Uygur said that making the rich pay 90 percent (like in the 1950s) is better, basically because Americans lived better then. Well, at that time 80 percent of health expenditures did not came from any level of the government. Anyway, is not a valid argument. They paid 90 percent because of the WWII debt. Today, in this global economy, overtaxing those who invest and/or produce is suicidal.
xaviqaz 1 year ago
@xaviqaz
90% is indeed way too high, but you have to consider the cause of the economic boom of the 1950's. There was a huge increase in consumer spending following the end of WW2 because America's soldiers came home to spend their war wages on new homes and a settled way of life. I.e, money they got directly from the government, coupled with a slew of new industrial avenues and technologies which were initially made possible through government war projects.
11111110 1 year ago
@11111110 War is not a test of bravery, or military abilities. It is a test of which economy can produce enough to destroy the rest. That was us. The economy won the war, not Govt spending. All our enemies had govts trying to spend the maximum as well.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1
We were still in the mires of the great depression going into the war, so the economy was hardly in the exemplary state you say it was in. In fact, the high unemployment is what made the shift into wartime so easy, there were millions of Americans looking to get those new government jobs either in the munitions factories or in the military.
But if you're going to say that government spending didn't build all those tanks and ships and weapons, well thats just crazy.
11111110 1 year ago
@11111110 The Govt must TAKE from private sector, in order to spend. Sure, Govt spending built the tanks, but the economy had to produce the wealth, so it could be diverted to tanks. Govt can only move existing capital around. We won the war because our economy had more wealth. Every enemy nation was bleeding their economies as well. Our economy was bigger, we could divert more capital than they could.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1
Right. The wealthy in America had deep pockets, even during the poor economic times of the 30's. Since then the definition of "wealthy" in America has increased exponentially. While middle class American income has remained the same over the past four decades, the disparity between them and the upper-class has increased tenfold. We are not facing a lack of capital.
Though its amazing how much Americans were able to prosper in the 50's, even with taxes at 70%.
11111110 1 year ago
@11111110 Federal Reserve pushes int rates low, which discourages savings, encourages debt. Federal tax policies punish work, production and investing, while rewarding debt with breaks for home ownership. Federal Social Security, Medicare for the old does NOT accumulate assets for those who pay in, just burns assets up as we go along. Federal policy pays people in many ways when not being productive. With all these perverse incentives, loss of wealth is inevitable, for those who listen to govt.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1
Except there hasn't been a net loss in wealth, and there is an obvious shortage of funding in the social security and medicare systems
11111110 1 year ago
@11111110 Social Security & MediCare would be illegal, if they were private sector plans. Petirement plans, they have to be funded, in the private sector. That means WEALTH is accumulating, as you pay in. In SS system, WEALTH is not accumulating, it is being spent. The SS Trust fund is tiny, compared to total liabilities, and even so, the fund is required to be lent to the Treasury, and spent. Private med ins is collected yearly, balancing yearly, or coming into balance with rate changes.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@11111110 Labor is taxed at 15.3% for Soc Sec & MediCare, applying that to a 40 yr working career (25-65), at $30,000/ yr, at 6% interest is about $700,000. Inflation would affect the wage, and int rate, so it is a fair estimate, and over the last 40 yrs, the avg returns of the S&P 500 stock index was over 10%, reinvesting dividends. Perhaps you may make over $600/ wk ( $30K/ yr), so perhaps YOU could be way above millionaire, instead of getting $1200 month, for AVG of 13 yrs for a male.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1
That is, assuming the stock market remains stable. It'd be real unfortunate if anyone tried to get their retirement money out of the stock market at the time of the housing market collapse, wouldn't it?
11111110 1 year ago
@11111110 The S&P 500 level is about the same as it was in 2001, BUT dividends averaged about 6% over the last 10 years, SO, your worry just proves you are not aware of reality. Saving for retirement, and drawing down those funds is a gradual savings on the way up, and down, over 40 years, or more, and so the last 10 years, a bad time is still not a problem, with the numbers I gave you. Only LIBS think volatility dooms SAVING. Conservatives just keep plugging away, getting richer, over time.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1
Oh? Is that why most voters making over $200,000 voted for Obama in 2008?
11111110 1 year ago
@11111110 Most voters in ALL income groups voted for Obama, but his BIGGEST margins were among the poor. All Income groups grew for Dems grew subsantantially 2004- 2008. ( they won) But, I just said conservatives keep on plugging. I see/ hear Libs every day around here just whining, begging, for Obama to steal someone else`s income, and give it to them. So, poorer Republicans are NOT waiting for handouts, stupid, according to your comments.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1
Wrong again, the majority of Americans in the $100,000-$200,000 income bracket voted for McCain
And my comments weren't meant to imply that poorer republicans are waiting for handouts. I was just dispelling your misconception, that "Conservatives just keep plugging away, getting richer, over time". When in reality, most rich successful people aren't conservative, and most conservatives aren't rich.
11111110 1 year ago
Let´s see. In Switzerland the federal top bracket tax on personal income is 11.5 percent; 8.5 percent for corporations. And people are not starving. In fact they have the lowest poverty, crime and unemployment rates in Europe
xaviqaz 1 year ago
Umm "56% of the American people want everyone taxed the same"... Right now the middle class pays 15% and the high earners pay 45%. So that means most of America wants the Rich to pay less...
Stop putting on idiots and put a conservative on that knows how to argue a point...the facts are right there. Seriously watch it again.
cchanderson 1 year ago
@cchanderson no dipshit, what he means is people should have to pay an equal percent of their paycheck/salary to the govt. Right now we middle class citizens are taxed a higher percent of our paychecks/salaries than those rich-ass mother fuckers do. I didn't realize that in order to pay for our debt we have to reduce our self to overtaxing the poor and undertaxing the rich. besides, it doesn't matter, majority wins, dont like it leave. Have fun finding a conservative nation shittier than ours.
Andy180084 1 year ago
@Andy180084 You are shit stupid if you think "rich people" are taxed at a lower rate than the middle class.
10% $0 – $8,375
15% $8,376 – $34,000
25% $34,001 – $82,400
28% $82,401 – $171,850
33% $171,851 – $373,650
35% $373,651+
There is the answer to your ridiculous statement...now go cut your balls off so you cannot contaminate the rest of my world.
cchanderson 1 year ago
@cchanderson your obviously a rich fuck. Again, your outnumbered, everyone wants bush's shitty tax cuts to expire. Time for your precious "richies" to pay up.
Andy180084 1 year ago
@Andy180084 But Bush's tax cuts for everyone is being extended another two years...so how is it "time to pay up"?
cchanderson 1 year ago
@chaumont20
A) Never said i was an expert, quite the contrary, my statement under-stated my knowledge. B) It's not foolish, Reaganomics failed, even Reagan with his runaway spending and tax cuts couldn't pull it off, he raised National Debt by 20.6% of GDP in 8 years, a massive failure. C) I am an Australian so i don't know what you're rambling about with your "Freedom the USA provides"... what, is this some kind of Team America Line? As if mate, your countries a joke.
ArachEye 1 year ago
@ArachEye i agree 100% with u man, people in this country need to realize every1's laughing at us. also reaganomics were a joke, it ruined our economy then and caused mass inflation as did Bush's tax cuts. Its kinda sad that bush senior was the one who got it right by RAISING the taxes for the rich, and clinton sealed the deal. We need another clinton, its kinda disappointing that obama gives in to the repubs so much.
Andy180084 1 year ago
@Andy180084 Mass inflation? That was when Reagan was elected. Volker raised interest rates to over 20%, and inflation was eliminated. Oil fell from $50 barrel in 1980 to $10 barrel in 1999. Atlantic Richfeild ( Arco, was near bankruptcy, thats why BP bought them.) I guess you are unaware that Capital Gains taxes were cut by Clinton from 28% to 20? Republicans under Gingrich got control of Congress after only 2 Clinton years, he could not DO ANYTHING LIBERAL. Stupid.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 i dunno where you get your "research" but most people know that bush sr. and clinton raised taxes to all time highs, and surprise surprise economic surplus. i guess textbooks and wikipedia better change their data. reagonomics were pathetic and caused a recession, then bush and cheney looking out for their butt buddies in big business tried it again, and started a fucktarded war to go with it.
Andy180084 1 year ago
@Andy180084 Top personal tax rates under Clinton were 39.6%. Surprise, surprise, the top personal tax rates of the 1950`s were 91%. Clinton also cut the capital gains tax rate ( for the rich) from 28% to 20%. Surprise, surprise. Taxes were a mixed bag under Clinton. Are you even AWARE recessions and expansions affect budgets? Are you aware budget surplus/ deficits have 2 parts, tax revenue, AND spending? Tax revenue NOW is Low, because of economy, not tax rates.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@Andy180084 As for the US imploding in the future, Europe is imploding NOW. You Libs always have bragged about Europe, with its wonderful Social Democracies. The EU has 60% more people than the US, and 6% more production. How efficient.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@Andy180084 If you use Linux, fine, but 99% of us find Bill Gates more convenient, that is WHY he is so rich.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArachEye i agree 100% with u man, people in this country need to realize every1's laughing at us. also reaganomics were a joke, it ruined our economy then and caused mass inflation as did Bush's tax cuts. Its kinda sad that bush senior was the one who got it right by RAISING the taxes for the rich, and clinton sealed the deal. We need another clinton, its kinda disappointing that obama gives in to the repubs so much.
Andy180084 1 year ago
@ArachEye Us has 310 million people, Australia 21 million. GDP Australia is $840 billion, US is $14 Trillion. Joke is on you, stupid.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
Cenk should run for president, im serious. he's the only guy who knows what he's talking about.
Andy180084 1 year ago
LOL!! "with higher tax cuts they will be able to hire more people to clean their houses". is this video serious? i feel like the black guy is an undercover liberal trying to sabotage the conservatives. That statement was rediculous!!!
Andy180084 1 year ago
@Andy180084 Every rich person DOES something with his money. Fed statistic show they spend aT LEAST 88%. If he cant pay his call girl $10,000 a night, she will not be "stimulating" the economy, leaving a hole in the economy. It never is a question of whether he can do without the money, but taxing it away harms someone ELSE. Obama gives it to someone, its "stimulative", but Libs are too stupid to see that is balanced out by a whore not tipping the doorman, or supporting her little bastards.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
lol!!! "just b/c u make $250,000 a year it doesnt mean your wealthy". I almost died when i heard that!! that is loaded, super rich. They average family makes like $50 grand a year, again the rich pay their fair share. i hate republicans, people should revolt.
Andy180084 1 year ago
@Andy180084 If you are at the median income, the 50% below you pays 3% of all income tax. For the math challenged, the top 50% pay 97%. Thats FAIR? The top 10% pay 70%! The % the rich paid after Bush cut taxes went UP! Lowering tax rates increase the share of all taxes paid by the rich. They will pay LESS, if you raise them. IRS statistics prove this.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 Federal income taxes are only the tip of the pie. Federal taxes are paid on MANY products everyone must buy. SS,Medicare, and unemployment taxes are only paid on w2 wages which is not the way the rich earn their incomes.
To play the percentage game using only federal income tax is misleading at best and close to outright lying. I have no problem with differing opinions on tax fairness but your comments are BS
finerbiner 1 year ago
@finerbiner The largest source of Federal Revenue is the income tax, at 45% of total. The second largest source is Payroll taxes, ( Social Security) at 36%. Many rich are paid at w-2 wages, and pay SS taxes on that. Many rich are in business, and pay 15.3%, double what workers pay. Lawyers, Doctors, Hedge funds mamagers, pay the 15.3% on Medicare and Social security. As there
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 I own a small business. My wife owns a small business. We do well. You sir are the one who is full of it. I must pay myself a W2 wage, that is true. The majority of my income is pass through K1 income that is subject only to federal income tax. Federal taxes are paid on every utility, at the pump and other sourced. These taxes are not prorated in any way. The difference between you and I is that although we both probably do well financially, I'm grateful and you are a selfish ass
finerbiner 1 year ago
Respond to this video...Furthermore, the truly rich make there money in the markets and pay only the federal taxes their accounting teams can not get them out of. Corporation's job the system to the point where the majority of corporations pay zero.
You are just a liar who uses statistics. Dime a dozen, so stop patting yourself on the back. this country was greatest when we had a solid middle class, and will continue to decline until we stop ravaging it.
finerbiner 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 You need economics 101. Employers match what employees pay and that money is part of what is called "burden" in accounting. If the employer did not have to pay it on behalf of the employee, their wage would be higher. So the result is the same as the self employment tax.
The result of the last 30 yrs is that the US now has the highest disparity between rich and poor. Yet all you want to do is give hand jobs to the oligarchs.
finerbiner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@finerbiner The richest 1 percent pay 27.5 percent of the combined burden, the top 20 percent pay 72 percent, and the bottom 20 percent pay just 0.4 percent. One reason that the disparity in tax shares is so large is that Americans in the bottom quintile who have jobs get reimbursed for some or all of their 15 percent payroll tax through the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a fairly efficient poverty-abatement program. fineriner, you are just full of it.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@finerbiner It’s true that the distribution of taxes is somewhat more equally divided when payroll taxes are accounted for—but the change is surprisingly small. Payroll taxes of 15 percent are charged on the first dollar of income earned by a worker, and most of the tax is capped at an income of just below $100,000. The Tax Policy Center, run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, recently studied payroll and income taxes paid by each income group.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
Respond to this video... The richest 1 percent pay 27.5 percent of the combined burden, the top 20 percent pay 72 percent, and the bottom 20 percent pay just 0.4 percent. One reason that the disparity in tax shares is so large is that Americans in the bottom quintile who have jobs get reimbursed for some or all of their 15 percent payroll tax through the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a fairly efficient poverty-abatement program. fineriner, you are just full of it.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
lol the rich should have to pay their fair share, I can't believe this is up for debate.
Andy180084 1 year ago
@Andy180084 The top 10% pay 70% of all taxes, the bottom 90% pay 30%. I agree with you, the middle class and poor are not paying their fair share. Funny when Libs say it is so moral for the rich to pay even more, when the top 50% pay 97%, and the bottom 50% pay 3%. It is only moral, when they pay zero % income taxes.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 the rich are grossly over-payed. There will come a time when the privileged 10% of the population are earning 90% of the nations wealth, just as it was over a hundred years ago. It is pathetic that the already wealthy should ever deserve EVEN MORE money than us middle class citizens. Repubs need to stop sucking rich guys dicks, or eventually people will wake up and revolt.
Andy180084 1 year ago
@Andy180084 I think you ought to make your next computer purchase without Windows installed. You make Bill Gates rich. Use Linux. Buffet owns shares in Coke, wells fargo, Kraft foods, WalMart, Costco, Nestle, etc, so be sure not to do business there either. WE voluntarily make choices that enrich businesses that are pleasing us. Make your own Mayonaise, cheese
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 I actually use linux on 2 of my computers.... and i would give money to gates, he is at least a philanthropist. i don't understand why repubs cant give up just a tad more of their income to improve the economy? are they really that selfish?
Andy180084 1 year ago
@Andy180084 If I pull a gun, take $200 from your wallet, and go spend it, did I stimulate the economy? Sure, the hooker I gave it to is happy, so is her pimp, but they "stimulate" the economy with my cash, just like YOU were going to do. Explain how moving money from one pile to the next helps? Especially considering the rich got that way by doing something the market obviously WANTS. The folks govt gives money to isnt doing ANYTHING people want. If they were, they wouldnt be poor.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
At first I was thinking "Wow, that black guy is gay, he worked for Bush's campaign? Cloooseeeeeet!"
Then he started speaking and I realized he's just a black dude who knows there's a lot of money in it for him if he does the bidding for the rich guys, because they need some more color other than pasty white and old grey.
I mean, discrediting the taxation-poll because people want smaller govt? How's about let the Bush tax cuts expire, AND reduce federal waste?
MyTemporaryAccount88 1 year ago
@MyTemporaryAccount88 Blacks should be for the Democrats, and on their knees, begging Obama for crumbs. Thats where their place in society really is. There, now I am just like Clinton, and Jesse Jackson, and you too.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 Nope, you're most definitely not like me, nor Clinton, nor Jackson.
This may come as a shock to you, but what conservatives tell you about liberals isn't all true. Just as with every political position, you have your sheep, you have your crazies, etc.
However, I'm a pragmatist who seeks the solutions that are a) moral, b) help build a good society, & c) benefit the economy. Luckily, the CBO & others find that progressive solutions follow all 3 rules, like the public option.
MyTemporaryAccount88 1 year ago
@MyTemporaryAccount88 Orzog, Dir of CBO, Obamas Budget chief, wrote this"between 2003 and 2006, federal
receipts would have increased by only $373 billion. The other $252 billion of the
actual increase in revenues represents growth in excess of GDP growth. receipts as a share of GDP rose from 16.5 percent in 2003 to 18.4 percent
in 2006, an increase of 1.9 percentage points." 2002, top rate at 38.6, from 39.6, 2003 rate went to 35%, from 38.6%, this is why 2003 is year to check from.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 So you're saying Reaganomics work if you consider the fact that the taxes were different in 2001-2002 & 2003 on? Yeah I'm sorry but that proves nothing. My conclusions come from numbers spanning much further back, different countries, many different factors (social mobility, investment, savings rates etc), and oh yeah, recent analysis on things like how much things stimulate the economy, where funny enough, both the CBO & Moodys rated personal income tax cuts very, very low indeed.
MyTemporaryAccount88 1 year ago
@MyTemporaryAccount88 Your numbers? The numbers in your head, the ones you do not share? The fact was, personal rates were 39.6% under Clinton, and the Bush cuts of 2001 only dropped that rate 1/2% a year in 2001 and 2002. So, in 2002 it was 38.6%, and 2003 went to 35%. Thats why 2003 is significant, rates dropped 3.6% at once, rather that 1% over 2 years. Remember, the Dems have been claiming that cut caused the deficit, but revenue increased. Share your numbers to prove your point.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 Nice, you had to throw in the "in your head" bit, let's just throw respect out the window. I said "my conclusions", those are in my head, yes.
The reason that's irrelevant is because 2000 was a shitty decade (on multiple fronts), the last 30 years (Reaganomics-era) show an interesting trend, former Reagan officials speaking out, comparisons of westernized nations, etc. Those are things I consider.
If you want sources I need to send a personal message.
MyTemporaryAccount88 1 year ago
I'm surprised to see someone who worked for Bush/Cheney to be saying that MSNBC is a "great network".
LibertyInProgress 1 year ago
If the people who earn more than $250,000 want the "proportionally" ADDITIONAL tax cuts (10% extra), they should have to pay "proportionally" higher taxes on Social Security. Currently, everyone pays 6.2% on earnings up to $106,800. Everyone who earns MORE pays proportionally LESS than those of us who make less than that amount and consequently pay on 100% of that 6.2% tax. Otherwise, the wealthiest should only be allowed to collect a proportionally lower amount of benefits. It's equitable.
mrbhave 1 year ago
@mrbhave: There is a cap on retirement SS benefits .... that's why there's also a cap on how much the rich pay in.
2010GOP 1 year ago
@2010GOP True, but the same can be said about other goods and services that are paid for with tax dollars. Why is this argument only ever made for SS taxes?
mrbhave 1 year ago
@mrbhave: I made the "argument" for SS taxes because that's what your comment is about. And "the rich" do not use more Govt services than the middle-class & poor so I'm not understanding that argument.
2010GOP 1 year ago
@2010GOP My point is precisely that the uber rich NEVER get their money's worth when it comes to paying taxes, when viewed proportionally. But they are given special consideration when it comes to paying SS taxes. I'm not given a choice to pay less taxes if I collect fewer services. Why should the same philosophical argument be allowed for the wealthiest among us?
mrbhave 1 year ago
@mrbhave Because it is insurance,not welfare. You want it to be welfare, and think ever higher taxes have good results for living standards?
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 Taxes are at low rates. People making over $250k want a graduated refund when it comes to the Bush tax cuts, but they don't want to pay graduated SS taxes. I can't claim a refund on my taxes if I don't use the services for which I'm paying. Why should the uber rich get an EXTRA 10% off of their taxes? They are alreadying getting a tax cut. And still, it's not enough. You're being boondoggled by the GOP to protect the uber rich, while they gives us all the shaft. Well done.
mrbhave 1 year ago
@mrbhave There is a maximum payout on SS benefits already. That is why there is a max amount on what is collected. MediCare already goes beyond that, but the care is same. You dont want an insurance program at all, you just want SS to be welfare. I`m sure that additional taxes in the US will not encourage the rich to earn their money outside the US. There is no outsourcing.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
You do realize that there is a maximum amount of return on investment for EVERY service provided by the government, don't you? How do you know my position on SS? If I had my way, I'd set up a non-profit, privately funded plan that the government couldn't touch. Customers would be equal shareholders, similar to credit unions. There wouldn't be any need for advertising or million-dollar executives. Sorry, dude, but if I have to pay 100% on all of my taxes, so should the wealthy.
mrbhave 1 year ago
@mrbhave You want Fed 39.6% tax on the rich, 9.3% more in Ca, and then the 15.3% as well, if the rich person is self employed, taking his business income to live. That is 64.2%, I assume SDI ought to be included as well? You actually think that there will be no reaction by the rich, when allowed to keep 36 cents of every dollar? In the 1950`s, top rate was 91%, and % of tax revenue to govt was SAME as in Bush term 2001-2007 top rate 35%. MORE income was offered up to be taxed at low rates
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 Legitimate small business owners who actually fall into this bracket account for 2-3% of the top 2%. Your argument doesn't make sense from a logical or a mathematical view point. Bush (and other republicans) never figured out that the equation calls for lowering taxes AND reducing spending, something Bush couldn't seem to figure out. I don't think ANY of the current tax schemes in this country are fair. But the rich are ALREADY getting a tax cut like the rest of us.
mrbhave 1 year ago
Since Social Security Taxes were used to pay for the Iraq War - we should make it a "fair tax".
I have to send in about 15% of income into the SSA. It is so wrong for a total asshole like Dick Cheney who got us into the mess to only pay .00001% in SS tax.
DillonDee1 1 year ago
@DillonDee1 Social Security is a bankrupt insurance program, with benefits paid based on what you put in, up to a point. IF the Govt wants to tax it up to infinite income, it would need to pay benefits up to an infinite monthly payment as well. It does NOT. Furthermore, Cheney has mostly investment income, based on returns on capital, which even the most Liberal politicians do not want taxed at personal income tax levels. Please explain how destroying CAPITAL, ( which you imply here), is good.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 Given life in the U.S. before social security, and after, with no hesitation I would choose the latter. Soc Sec has been a great program for millions of America - we are all better off for it. Hardly bankrupt, in fact the U.S. Gov't has been borrowed over $1Trillion from Social Security for the General Fund, hence the "Trust Funds."
In the long term, some modifications needed for Soc Sec - but the big problem is Medicare. That's the big elephant in the room.
PeasantPundit 1 year ago
@PeasantPundit Life got better because of technical progress and freedom. If you take the taxes from SS and Medicare, of a Guy with only $30,000 a yr income, and invest at 6% for a 40 yr working life, there would be $700,0000. We pay a $million, for $1200 a month, for a few years. Wow, thats great! BTW, the return of the S&P 500, was 11% over the last 40 years, including the crash, not the 6% I stated, and inflation would drive stock values, and wages as well.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@PeasantPundit INCLUDING the SS Trust Fund money, the SS System is $17 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. The Trust Fund was borrowed, as you stated, but it does not exist. When SS demnds the paltry $1 trillion back, the Treasury will need more taxes, or the Fed to print it. Perhaps you think donating a $million, for $15,000 a year is good, when just a reasonable return would be $60,000 a year, not even touching your principal?
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 Reagan and Dem Congress raised SS taxes, then "borrowed" the money to pay for Personal Income Tax cuts, in effect raising taxes on the middle class and lowering them for the wealthy.
Nothing works in a vacuum. You can't assume everyone could simply invest in S&P and future return would pan out. In fact, all that 401K $ captive in market is now coming home to roost. For years money went in, now boomers need to withdraw- what does that do for stock prices?
PeasantPundit 1 year ago
@PeasantPundit There are "ETF`s: on the S&P 500. The last 40 years made 11%, when dividends are reinvested, I used 6% as an example. The last 10 years have seen the S&P 500 values stagnant, but dividends are now 5%. ( P?E ratio avg). 6% is reasonable. Boomers will NOT sell that much, they have turned over the $1 million each to the Govt, who spent it. Foreign capital can come, and China/India have growing wealth.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@PeasantPundit By law, SS surplus goes to the Treasury, offsetting deficits. This always is the case, and under Clinton also occurred. We are told Clinton ran surpluses, but when you examine total nation debt during his term, it ROSE each year. It rose, because he also spent the surpluses, which you like reporting on Reagan only, because your goal is your agenda, not truth.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luvcheney1 @luvcheney1 Reagan and Dem Congress raised SS taxes, then "borrowed" the money to pay for Personal Income Tax cuts, in effect raising taxes on the middle class and lowering them for the wealthy.
Nothing works in a vacuum. You can't assume everyone could simply invest in S&P and future return would pan out. In fact, all that 401K $ captive in market is now coming home to roost. For years money went in, now boomers need to withdraw- what does that do for stock prices
PeasantPundit 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 -- you are right to call SS an "Insurance program" but then you contradict yourself by saying "benefits are based on what you put in".
That is mostly not true. I've had relatives who never contributed a dime & collected many thousands & have had relatives who contributed many thousands that never collected a dime.
Let's be fair -- let's put a "fair tax" on SS & have everyone put in the same %.
DillonDee1 1 year ago
@DillonDee1 Read again the sentence, I put a qualifier on it. "with benefits paid based on what you put in, up to a point." The already dead got MORE than what they paid in, and the retired of tomorrow will get less. "Fair" would be if the guy who puts 20 times more in, gets 20 times more out. They DO adjust your payment, loosely based on what goes in. Your Idea is obviously just having the wealthy pay for the pensions of everyone else. Another 15.3% tax on rich? 45% isnt enough?
luvcheney1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luvcheney1 @luvcheney1 Reagan and Dem Congress raised SS taxes, then "borrowed" the money to pay for Personal Income Tax cuts, in effect raising taxes on the middle class and lowering them for the wealthy.
Nothing works in a vacuum. You can't assume everyone could simply invest in S&P and future return would pan out. In fact, all that 401K $ captive in market is now coming home to roost. For years money went in, now boomers need to withdraw- what does that do for stock prices
PeasantPundit 1 year ago
On Nov 2nd "we the people" spoke. If you raise taxes on anybody, you will be voted out. If you want to lower the defecit....CUT SPENDING! If you want to spark the economy CUT TAXES!!! Any questions?
patriot473 1 year ago
@patriot473 lol....i can tell you dont watch this channel
almend1014 1 year ago
@almend1014
M ISLEADING
S OCIALIST
N EWS
B Y
C OMMUNISTS
patriot473 1 year ago
@almend1014 STFU, if you have no point in your posts.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@batangwaray1 I hope so. Nobody watches MSNBC.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
burned him, Cenk, burrrned him.
Brandt761 1 year ago
The fallacy is this. If a guy who runs Electrician Business GROSSES $250K he pays a huge tax....
YET his Profit might only be $40K, the rest is supplies he uses on the job.
This is the BS they are using about 'Tax Cuts for the Rich"
Look at the Rich Unions who are going to get exemptions to these taxes.
The purpose is to Tax these small guys out of business so Unions can take over.
This is Obama's payback to who elected him.
If ur a Rich Demo just dont pay, See C. Rangle & Obama Czars
Texmurphy51 1 year ago
Throughout most of our counry's history the richest 10% have paid most of the taxes.
That is certainly not true today.
When you factor in ALL taxes - not just Income tax, but also SOCIAL SECURITY TAX, SALES TAX, PROPERTY TAX, GASOLINE TAX, LIQ TAX, CIG TAX, CABLE TAX, ELEC TAX, REGISTRATIONS, TOLLS, FEES, FINES, ETC - you quickly see that most of the costs of running gov't today falls on the lower & middle classes.
DillonDee1 1 year ago
@DillonDee1 Of all revenue, State and local is only 1.2 Trill, and 2.7 Trill is Federal. Of the 2.7 trill Federal, they gave .4 Trill back to the states! The bottom 50% of federal taxpayers pay 3% of the federal income tax, which is the biggest source of federal income, 45%. Worker payroll is only 18%, and that is based on a % up to $106,000. Corp tax is 12%, business payroll match is 18%. In Ca, sales tax is 18%, but rich buy more stuff, property tax is 12%, rich live in more costly homes,
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@luvcheney1 The "rich" buy more stuff with a lower % of their income than the middle/lower classes, who spend most of their doe for day to day existence. The rich have many options for discretionary investing, including Communist China. Communist China & "Socialist" Germany enjoy huge trade surpluses with strong centralized governments - in the case of China, a strong arm government.
The U.S. needs import tariffs, lower corp. taxes, higher personal taxes.
PeasantPundit 1 year ago
@PeasantPundit FACT is that the rich spend between 88% and 97% of their incomes, depending on the part of the business cycle. 88% spent is WORST case. Money invested is not bad, because even if it is in China, the Capital gain and dividends accrue HERE, and are taxable. So, they pay tax on their income, save some, and pay on investment proceeds later. Even IF in China! China has become MORE CAPITALIST, less Govt interference since 1977, thats WHY it is now better. Germany rejects Obama`s ideas.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
Comment removed
luvcheney1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PeasantPundit Kansas City Fed Reserve says 41% of stocks were foreign in US. They also state if looking at RISK and RETURNS, investors here ought to have 60% foreign. That means investors in US are biased, toward the US. Money is invested abroad, because it MAKES more. Our 39% corp tax avg, vs 24% of OECD, regulations, environment, lawsuits, etc, ALL cause capital to flee. Still, 59% will be invested here, and all PROCEEDS are taxed here. If you dislike capital fleeing, improve profits HERE
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@DillonDee1 16% in Ca is income tax, and the rich pay that. Overall, you are so full of shit.
luvcheney1 1 year ago
republicans in the house today said that if they can't get the bonus they want for the richest people in the country, for income over $250,000 a year, then they don't want tax cuts for anybody! republicans want everybody's taxes to go up on new year's eve, unless they can get what they want, which is a specific tax cut for income over $250,000
mushroomhead777 1 year ago
@mushroomhead777
Actually, the ultra-richest people in the country don't pay any taxes. That's thanks to the Democrats, mainly. The ones you're talking about are a few-tiers below them.
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago
@LibertaerUeberAlles Yeah so I guess those rich people really don't need those tax cuts after all do they?
mushroomhead777 1 year ago
@mushroomhead777
The tax cuts will harm the ultra-rich, who voted against them.
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago
@LibertaerUeberAlles You obviously have no clue what's going on. republicans are holding these tax cuts for the middle class hostage, demanding an extra tax cut of $700 billion worth of bailout for millionaires and billionaires.
mushroomhead777 1 year ago
@mushroomhead777
"Bailout for millionaires and billionaires"? What are you talking about?
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago
@LibertaerUeberAlles Meaning that if you add $700 billion to the deficit to pay for tax cuts for rich people, you've added $700 billion to that deficit thing. which is not a way of making that deficit thing smaller. thing plus 700 billion does not equal smaller thing.
mushroomhead777 1 year ago
@mushroomhead777
Right, but you stated that the tax cuts benefit billionaires. However, that's incorrect. You don't understand how it works. Billionaires (as well as top-end millionaires) have their income-producing investments in tax-exempt 'foundations' and 'non-profits,' so they won't pay any extra taxes if there's a tax increase.
You see, under your plan, only small-cheese "rich" who will pay more. The big-cheese rich will only become richer (which is y they support your high-tax plan!).
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago
@LibertaerUeberAlles That is the biggest load of BULLSH*T I've ever heard. What incredible idiocy.
mushroomhead777 1 year ago
@mushroomhead777
The only "incredible idiocy" is on your part, for not doing minimal research into 501(c)(3) exempt organizations. Do you really think Mr. Micro$oft would be paying more in taxes after an increase?
If that doesn't convince you, consider that, even in absence of 'foundations,' millionaires and billionaires would simply switch out of income investments and move into, e.g., growth equities. Or they'd sit on real estate for a while -- at least until taxes come down again.
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago
@LibertaerUeberAlles I don't really get your point. Are you trying to say that the Bush Tax Cuts should be extended because rich people have tax loop holes? These are taxes on personal income. Not business income.
mushroomhead777 1 year ago
@mushroomhead777
No, I'm saying that federal income taxes should be repealed, completely, because they're part of a system designed by the ultra-rich to benefit the ultra-rich. Don't expect any extra tax monies to be distributed to "the poor." If you pay more, then it'll just embolden the ultra-rich channel more to themselves. Here's an interesting vid:
"Farrakhan and International Bankers"
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago
@LibertaerUeberAlles the democrats' position on this has been really clear for a long time. barack obama said a ton of times that the bush tax cuts should be extended for the first quarter million dollars of income. but above that, no. we cannot afford it. and it is not good for the economy. the first quarter million dollars of income, yes, above that, no. the democrats drew that line in the sand. they drew it before the session of congress started. they have drawn it a million times over.
mushroomhead777 1 year ago
@mushroomhead777
Your tax increases do nothing more than centralize economic/political power for the wealthiest people. That's why billionaires always support tax increases. Maybe you should google:
"Why do billionaires tend to be Democrats?"
There are much better ways to do it. Why not trim-down the mortgage interest deduction, instead? Then capital will go into productive enterprises instead of into luxury homes (which raise housing costs for all of us, due to market skewing).
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago
@ luvcheney1 I know that RT isn't a popular news channel with you lot, but I chose this because it shows Germany's position in this World. Take a careful look at this and you will understand why a GOOD and REALISTIC solution needs to be found quickly about the USA's debt (it's quite serious in mine too, recent budget cuts will hurt the middle class harshly).
watch?v=n6ImKVM_eZU
Juicexlx 1 year ago
@ luvcheney1 I know that RT isn't a popular news channel with you lot, but I chose this because it shows Germany's position in this World. Take a careful look at this and you will understand why a GOOD and REALISTIC solution needs to be found quickly about the USA's debt (it's quite serious in mine too, recent budget cuts will hurt the middle class harshly).
watch?v=n6ImKVM_eZU
Juicexlx 1 year ago
Wow, why is the liberal facing off camera and the right winger straight on?
WorldSutra 1 year ago
8:00 - Porky the pig "thats all folks" lol
UrPhreshness 1 year ago
@UrPhreshness Lol ! Indeed! Glad you can keep a sense of humor.
B..bbbb.... bbbbb... BUT ! :O)
Juicexlx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOP & TEA PARTY WAR AGAINST AMERICA
watch?v=-oFiQtHGdog
MrFreedomdemocracy 1 year ago 5
The USA's debt/capita is 41825$ (2010) ; GDP/capita = 46442$ (2009)
The Canada's debt/capita is 16193$ (2010) ; GDP/capita =37840$ (2009)
The debt of the USA is VERY serious, every individual in the USA owes 60% more than the average Joe in Canada, but if USA stops going to war and rebuilding everything, everywhere it goes and start managing it's national
budget more carefully, things could improve...BUT SOMETHING MUST BE DONE TO FIX THIS otherwise, we'll all going to the gutter! Look at EU.
Juicexlx 1 year ago
@Juicexlx -- We're definitely going into the gutter if they give $700 Billion in tax cuts to the richest 10% w/ money borrowed from China.
DillonDee1 1 year ago
@DillonDee1 Yeah... Can't count on the cleaning lady at 5:34 working for the guy who makes 200k$ to bail us out ! She doesn't even make the required 46442$/year required to stay even. That Republican adviser is thick as a brick and very bad at mathematics...
I gave you the numbers. Even if the USA and Canada were to merge tomorrow, there wouldn't be enough money to pay that kind of debt ! So, yeah income tax cuts for the rich MUST stop ! War mongering MUST stop also ! Just saying...
Juicexlx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Juicexlx In the 1950`s, the top personal rate was 91%, corp rate 51%, and from 1951-1960, the govt got 17.3% of GDP in taxes. During Bush`s term, 2001-2007, govt got 17.4% of GDP in taxes, with a personal rate of 35%, and corp rate of 35%. Lowering taxes in the real world, over 6 decades, is reality. Result has been no real change at all in the Govts share of GDP from taxes. Yet, YOU LIBS think you will get revenue? 91% rates got you the same, Stupid!
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@DillonDee1 Except that when the top rate was 91% the Govt got the same percent of GDP in tax revenue as it did when Bush cut the rate to 35%. Raising the tax rate will cause the rich to take money to spend from capital, which is not taxed at the high levels of income. They will make adjustments. This is why there has been no difference between 91% and 35% tax rates. Want a Federal website with the statistics to prove it? To prove the rich paid a higher % of all taxes, at lower % rates?
luvcheney1 1 year ago
@Juicexlx Too bad reality is that military spending is 18.7% of the budget, transfers to people are 60%. Nice to recognize on your part thge US is more productive though. Most Libs think everyone else is.
luvcheney1 1 year ago