pretty simple you would think, but i guess not by the thumbs down. Whats funny is the people who hate the free market sure love the perks it delivers.
like the people who are thumbing down your post on a computer created by the free market. hahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahhahahahahhaha hahahahahaahahahahahahhahahahahahah
__________________
Credulity kills. -- Carl Sagan
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -- Neil Degrasse Tyson
Yeah, so the top 1%'ers make ~20% of the income and pay 38% of the taxes. The bottom 50 % make ~12.7 % of the income and pay less than 3% of the taxes. Who is paying their "fair share" or what would you consider a fair share of someone else's labor.
What's fair is for everyone that is fortunate to live in the US contribute to the running of the country. If your income is low and you are just working 40 hours a week, find another job. I've never run across someone that worked 60 hours a week that wasn't successful. If you're working less, stop complaining, that's your issue. I've worked 60+ hours a week for 20+ years now. At one time it was 2 jobs, and strangely enough it was the 2nd, part-time, job that paved the way for me to work a single job for much more money. Funny thing is that the expectations of the single job had me working as many hours as the 2 jobs, but that's what is required and expected of me by my employer. A trade off that I'm happy to make as it allows me to do the things I want when I have the time.
If your happy working 40 hours a week that's fine, just don't expect someone to float your lack of ambition. If you can't find a 2nd job (or a first for that matter), look to the rotten economic policies of our president, or start a green energy company.
Does your employer at least wipe your chin when you're done?
__________________
Credulity kills. -- Carl Sagan
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -- Neil Degrasse Tyson
Yeah, so the top 1%'ers make ~20% of the income and pay 38% of the taxes. The bottom 50 % make ~12.7 % of the income and pay less than 3% of the taxes. Who is paying their "fair share" or what would you consider a fair share of someone else's labor.
The tax% numbers aren't even the most disconcerting numbers there. 1% making 20% of the wealth, while 50% makes ~12.7%. That's pretty scary.
Quote:
What's fair is for everyone that is fortunate to live in the US contribute to the running of the country. If your income is low and you are just working 40 hours a week, find another job.
If your happy working 40 hours a week that's fine, just don't expect someone to float your lack of ambition. If you can't find a 2nd job (or a first for that matter), look to the rotten economic policies of our president, or start a green energy company.
What? People can't find one job, let alone TWO. Writing off this problem as a product of the government does absolutely nothing to address the gigantic hole is your rant on how lazy poor people are.
What's even more crazy is that you started off this rant by posting economic numbers that indicate how absolutely LOW a percent of the wealth is even available to the "50%".
To put it another way, you showed us how bad income inequality in this country is with your numbers, and then ranted about how a "lack of ambition" is responsible for people making less money than they want to. Then, when faced with a major hole in your ambition solution (the fact that there aren't enough jobs for everyone to have ONE, much less TWO), you write it off as being caused by the President.
Not only are you calling poor people lazy, but you are calling poor people that work 40 hours a week lazy.
There are hundreds of things that make this country great and hard work is one of many. Your idea that the only options are to work hard or not work hard are simplistic and short-sighted. Obviously working hard is not the key to success or there wouldn't be so many lazy rich people or so many hard working poor people.
I said what MADE this country great, not what MAKES this country great. Historically most people worked hard, not smart. When ships were wood and men were... well you know. Your inference that we shouldn't work hard because we might not end up rich is one of the most ridiculous suppositions I have ever heard. It's like saying bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people, so there's not point in being a good person. Grow up dude.
As usual, there are a lot of silly statements made in this thread about the economic nature of the global economy and how it's evolved.
Myth#1: There is such as a thing as a "free market"--uh. no. Governments from the very beginning have been involved in facilitating, regulating, and controlling free enterprise. This idea that there's somehow a "free market" completely removed from government regulation and control is just simply not true. The choice has never really been between a "free market" or some other system like communism, or fascism is fear mongering. Governments have always been the handmaidens for free enterprise, as much as they've impeded it. This idea that there's a political party fundamentally opposed to such a thing is engaging in perpetuating propaganda.
Myth#2: Wealth re-distribution: Many would like to paint tax dollars as just supplying a bunch of free-loading blacks and poor white trash to live in trailers, produce meth and distribute guns and sit on their hands and do nothing. But the reality is the "wealth distribution" if defined as government expenditures, can be classified in many ways: Social Security, Medicare, the military, education, infrastructure. The problem is that there's an automatic, often visceral reaction that none of these expenditures net in any real benefits for the common good *and* for the benefit of the private sector. For example, aid for the poor might keep working families afloat during tough economic periods. Or building roads, improving levees, or investing in advanced warning systems through NOAA could keep commerce active and help people preserve life and property. Investment in education has similar results. In sum, "wealth distribution" to me can mean, say, tax cuts to a small business, subsidizing a corporate enterprise, building a road, or providing government benefits for poor family. IE, it's become a political trope that is meaningless. Does the "wealth distribution" amount to anything positive? That's my problem with people who use the term. To me, it's largely used to insult or demean any government program to suit some political agenda.
What I think many miss is how essential and beneficial government services can be, with the help of a free market system has made this country great. Nobody in their right mind wants the government to completely eliminate the system of private enterprise; communism doesn't work, and it never will, but if you pay attention to a little history, significant government intervention and taxation didn't exactly kill American enterprise, and arguably it made the American dream more equitable and attainable.
Onto tax rates. We've seen this debate play out before. I've argued that supply-side position of lowering taxes works really well when personal taxes are fairly high, per the Laffer Curve:
Here's another possibly worthless graph, which covers historical corporate tax rates compared to individual income taxes.
My point is that I think a tax increase wouldn't kill the country, in fact, depending on the economic circumstances, I think both tax increases or decreases can definitely help the health of the country, after all, in that post World War II period, the United States had a top-marginal personal rate of around 90%, and a corporate rate of around 50%. Neither blanket tax increases or increases are magic bullets. But if we want to really solve the debt problem, we either can just absolutely cut this country's most vulnerable at the knees, or raise taxes. And those most vulnerable? Servicemen, recipients of medicare, Social Security, take your pick.
Conversely, there's absolutely nothing at all with deregulation or tax cuts, but we have to be very deliberate and smart with the policy. But this idea that endlessly privatizing everything and leaving it up to the private sector favors the super wealthy, who in many cases, don't work hard for their keep, and who are wealthy. I've read many in this thread who work two jobs to make ends meet. You ever think about the super wealthy who just pass on what they make without working? This country has a long history of those who don't earn their keep who are considered rich.
The post-World War II period was the most economically successful period in economic history since the early 1800s. Of course, this country had a strong manufacturing base--which arguably it's somewhat revived in the last four years.
Producing a fair and equitable economic system can, and has often included the government, in fact government has often within United States history been the handmaiden for such free enterprise which has been the tide which has lifted all boats.
Graphs are meaningless if we don't know the tax loop holes. It can be 90% but was there a way to avoid most of that? Like the buffet tax it can be circumvented if you donate more to charity.
__________________
Quote:
One of these Mornings.... God is gonna' call me home...I won't need no breakfast....I'll be gone, gone. - Breakfast song
Graphs are meaningless if we don't know the tax loop holes. It can be 90% but was there a way to avoid most of that? Like the buffet tax it can be circumvented if you donate more to charity.
So what you are saying is "Words words words, dumb graph, more words, another dumb graph, words"
Superfan stop arguing with freaking liberals. It would take a complete idiot not to see how bad Obama's approval has dropped. But there so closed minded and brain washed by Obama, that you will never change there mind.
Superfan stop arguing with freaking liberals. It would take a complete idiot not to see how bad Obama's approval has dropped. But there so closed minded and brain washed by Obama, that you will never change there mind.
For the first time ever, I agree with you. He should stop. Reb gave him fair analysis and examples in different forms to make an argument. He had no equal opposite response except something resembling:
Location: a position or site occupied or available for occupancy or marked by some distinguishing feature.
Age: 39
Posts: 9,311
The fact that you think Rebsaint is a liberal makes me laugh. Think for yourself for once. I personally think Superfan should stop posting because I can feel myself starting to breathe through my mouth when I am done reading his posts.
__________________
Join the Marines. Visit exotic places, meet strange and interesting people, and kill them.
Graphs are meaningless if we don't know the tax loop holes. It can be 90% but was there a way to avoid most of that? Like the buffet tax it can be circumvented if you donate more to charity.
How about this one (effective tax rates over time):
All of those "socialism" accusations are pretty empty with tax rates for the wealthy dropping at this rate while their income (adjusted for inflation) has skyrocketed over the past 50 years.
Or this one, for all of the people that say 50% of families don't pay taxes:
The actual income tax is only 40% of tax revenue, payroll taxes make up another 40%, and everyone with a (legitimate) job pays those.
Linear Mode
