The Rich Are To Blame For Bad Economy

[red states rule]

Now liberals are saying the rich are to blame for the bad economy, and of course, their solution to take more of their money

The top 1% already pay about 40% of all Federal income taxes collected


<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdkUSUaGnz" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdkUSUaGnz" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[fj1200]

So what exactly is wrong with unequal income distribution? I would think it a natural byproduct of an economy that values knowledge and innovation over labor and output productivity.

[Sweetchuck]

So what exactly is wrong with unequal income distribution? I would think it a natural byproduct of an economy that values knowledge and innovation over labor and output productivity.

"Income distribution" certainly has a socialist connotation to it, but the thing that many people conveniently ignore is that the freemarket market that exists here isn't "free" by any means. By that I mean that the wealthy enjoy privileges that the not-so-wealthy don't enjoy. It's easier for them to make money.

I don't disagree with the theory that the wealthy keep the capitalist machine rolling (by throwing bones to the rest of us), but I don't subscribe to the theory that the wealthy are completely innocent and deserving either by any stretch.

[DragonStryk72]

"Income distribution" certainly has a socialist connotation to it, but the thing that many people conveniently ignore is that the freemarket market that exists here isn't "free" by any means. By that I mean that the wealthy enjoy privileges that the not-so-wealthy don't enjoy. It's easier for them to make money.

I don't disagree with the theory that the wealthy keep the capitalist machine rolling (by throwing bones to the rest of us), but I don't subscribe to the theory that the wealthy are completely innocent and deserving either by any stretch.

It isn't really about innocence or guilt, when you come down to it. There's a few good reasons to not tax the rich.

1) They'll invest in the market, since they're doing it already: Let's face it, right now, we can use every dime of investment capital in our economy we can get.

2) They'll start up new businesses, or expand those they already own: This is pretty simple, if a person who is making money off a business has enough, they'll want to make more.

3) they'll spend it: You may not like Lindsay Lohan and her crowd, but the spoiled rich spend a ridiculous amount of money, and having more of it leftover will only increase the bleed.

As well, if it weren't for the US having the second highest in the world, we likely wouldn't be seeing so much of our industry going overseas, and a number would actually return.

The biggest issue I have with the income tax as a hole, though, is that it punishes success, and rewards failure. It isn't even limited to the rich either. My mom is a school bus driver for disabled kids, and the kids who get sent up for behavioral problems. Because she's actually good at her rather thankless job, she was given a raise a month or two ago. The 10% she got put her into the next tax bracket, which resulted in her taking home less money, which is all that people really care about on their paycheck in the end.

[red states rule]

"Income distribution" certainly has a socialist connotation to it, but the thing that many people conveniently ignore is that the freemarket market that exists here isn't "free" by any means. By that I mean that the wealthy enjoy privileges that the not-so-wealthy don't enjoy. It's easier for them to make money.

I don't disagree with the theory that the wealthy keep the capitalist machine rolling (by throwing bones to the rest of us), but I don't subscribe to the theory that the wealthy are completely innocent and deserving either by any stretch.

Is this more of your "conservatives" beleifs? The rich toss us bones, they have privileges we don't, and it is easy to make money?

BTW, it is called income redistribution Sweetness. You take money from those who earn it and give it to those who did not earn it

[red states rule]

So what exactly is wrong with unequal income distribution? I would think it a natural byproduct of an economy that values knowledge and innovation over labor and output productivity.

In some twisted way, some think they will make the poor richer by making the ricj poorer

They also think, no matter how high they raise taxes, the producers will still keep producing at the same level

[Agnapostate]

The rich? Economic crisis is an inevitable tendency of capitalism, but that doesn't require assignment of specific moral culpability to "the rich." Wealth inequities are simply another symptom of the core disease, though a partial cause of its perpetuation also.

Regardless, as has been explained to the rightists on this forum numerous times before, progressive taxation is not "unequal." The diminishing marginal utility of income in fact requires progressive taxation to ensure an equal burden of taxation, rather than the regressive burden that flat taxes would impose. The problem, as I've explained in the past, is that you are not relying on a rational analysis of sound economic policy to come to your conclusions; you are relying on your preconceived moral views about the association between wealth and virtue. As I said in another thread, this attitude is summarized in the cognitive linguist George Lakoff's book, Moral Politics:


Dan Quayle, in his acceptance speech at the 1992 Republican convention, attacked the idea of progressive taxation, in which the rich are taxed at a higher rate than the poor. His argument went like this: "Why," he asked, "should the best people be punished?" The line brought thunderous applause.

It should now be clear why, from the conservative worldview, the rich should be seen as "the best people." They are the model citizens, those who, through self-discipline and hard work, have achieved the American Dream. They have earned what they have and deserve to keep it. Because they are the best people - people whose investments create jobs and wealth for others - they should be rewarded. Taking money away is conceptualized as harm, financial harm; that is the metaphorical basis of seeing taxation as punishment. When the rich are taxed more than others for making a lot more money, they are, according to conservatives, being punished for being model citizens, for doing what, according to the American Dream, they are supposed to do.

Taxation of the rich is, to conservatives, punishment for doing what is right and succeeding at it. It is a violation of the Morality of Reward and Punishment. In the conservative worldview, the rich have earned their money and, according to the Morality of Reward and Punishment, deserve to keep it. Taxation - the forcible taking of their money from them against their will - is seen as unfair and immoral, a kind of theft. That makes the federal government a thief. Hence, a common conservative attitude toward the government: You can't trust it, since, like a thief, it's always trying to find ways to take your money.

My hypothesis then, as now, is this: This tendency is a facet of rightists' greater inclinations to analyze issues with emotional intuitions, as evidenced in Inbar et al.'s Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a794011402): "The uniquely human emotion of disgust is intimately connected to morality in many, perhaps all, cultures (Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999b). We report two studies suggesting that a predisposition to feel disgust (“disgust sensitivity”) is associated with more conservative political attitudes, especially for issues related to the moral dimension of purity. In the first study, we document a positive correlation between disgust sensitivity and self-reported conservatism in a broad sample of US adults. In Study 2 we show that while disgust sensitivity is associated with more conservative attitudes on a range of political issues, this relationship is strongest for purity-related issues—specifically, abortion and gay marriage."

Moreover, when political outlooks are understood as interconnected networks of policy views based on the same foundational moral axioms (which is why certain views tend to cluster together), it's understandable why their reactions to perceived "unfairness" would also be primarily guided by emotion.


So what exactly is wrong with unequal income distribution? I would think it a natural byproduct of an economy that values knowledge and innovation over labor and output productivity.

I would disagree. For example, consider the perspective offered in Clemens and Heinemann's On the Effects of Redistribution on Growth and Entrepreneurial Risk-taking (http://www.springerlink.com/content/x42t622364325020/):


If the presence of risk goes along with less entrepreneurial activity and subsequently lower growth, a natural question to ask is to what extent an appropriately designed public tax-transfer-scheme might stimulate firm ownership, if private markets for pooling individual risks are not available due to credit market imperfections or moral hazard problems. These considerations draw from an argument first brought forward by Varian (1980), Eaton and Rosen (1980) and Sinn (1996). The authors point out that redistributive taxation — being effective ex post — acts as a social insurance, thereby providing incentives to already increase risk-taking from an ex ante point of view.

Even aside from specific considerations of dynamic efficiency, there is empirical research that suggests an inverse relationship between inequality and economic growth. We have, for instance, Persson and Tabellini's Is Inequality Harmful for Growth? (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2118070)


Is inequality harmful for growth? We suggest that it is. In a society where distributional conflict is important, political decisions produce economic policies that tax investment and growth-promoting activities in order to redistribute income. The paper formulates a theoretical model that captures this idea. The model's implications are supported by the evidence. Both historical panel data and postwar cross sections indicate a significant and large negative relation between inequality and growth. This relation is only present in democracies.

Unfortunately, a relatively lengthy history of experience on this board and others populated by persons with similar attitudes has taught me that the likes of rightists such as red states rule and mrs. kurt's princess will simply ignore evidence that does not agree with their perspective. If it's inconvenient to consider, the solution is to simply not consider it at all. It's worth noting that their moral views about the wealthy are themselves challenged by empirical evidence. Contrary to the utopian fantasy of the wealthy rising to the top through a lifetime of virtuous hard work and saving, economic research indicates that the bulk of aggregate capital accumulation is derived through intergenerational transfers, i.e. inheritances. Why should people be rewarded for an accident of birth or circumstance? Moreover, contrary to the similarly utopian fantasy of the American dream, people rising and falling according to how hard they are willing to work, there is greater social immobility in the U.S. and the UK than in continental Europe, particularly social democratic Scandinavia. I posted all of this evidence in the thread about poverty. As I expected, there was not a mature response.


It isn't really about innocence or guilt, when you come down to it. There's a few good reasons to not tax the rich.

If your interest is in the preservation and relatively smooth function of capitalism, there really aren't, as I just explained to fj1200. Incidentally, it's worth nothing that the various "values" of the wealthy that you mentioned are artificially socially constructed ones, and not actual material requisites of production and consumption. The difference between a material and social requisite of production, for example, is this: To operate a mine, material requisites such as excavators, explosives, drills, hydraulic equipment, etc. are required. All the money and credit in the world will do nothing without the requisite machinery. The "financing" needed is a social requisite. It is necessary only as long as capitalists' purchase of title deeds to land and equipment are recognized by legal and other social institutions as legitimate exercises of property ownership. And considering the empirical research that indicates that workers' ownership and management is more efficient and productive than the standard hierarchy that characterizes firms, this is simply a wasteful practice, the opportunity cost of which is greater economic production.

[red states rule]

When you soak the rich you lose the rich. Look at liberal states with high tax rates




With states facing nearly $100 billion in combined budget deficits this year, we're seeing more governors than ever proposing the Barack Obama solution to balancing the budget: Soak the rich. Lawmakers in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Oregon want to raise income tax rates on the top 1% or 2% or 5% of their citizens. New Illinois Gov. Patrick Quinn wants a 50% increase in the income tax rate on the wealthy because this is the "fair" way to close his state's gaping deficit.

Mr. Quinn and other tax-raising governors have been emboldened by recent studies by left-wing groups like the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities that suggest that "tax increases, particularly tax increases on higher-income families, may be the best available option." A recent letter to New York Gov. David Paterson signed by 100 economists advises the Empire State to "raise tax rates for high income families right away."

Here's the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states.

And the evidence that we discovered in our new study for the American Legislative Exchange Council, "Rich States, Poor States," published in March, shows that Americans are more sensitive to high taxes than ever before. The tax differential between low-tax and high-tax states is widening, meaning that a relocation from high-tax California or Ohio, to no-income tax Texas or Tennessee, is all the more financially profitable both in terms of lower tax bills and more job opportunities.

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124260067214828295.html




On the Federal level, taking money out of the private sector reduces ecomic growth and the money is wasted on bloated government

That is why voters are speaking out. They have to live within their means - no reason why government should not as well

[Agnapostate]

When you soak the rich you lose the rich. Look at liberal states with high tax rates

On the Federal level, taking money out of the private sector reduces ecomic growth and the money is wasted on bloated government

That is why voters are speaking out. They have to live within their means - no reason why government should not as well

Arthur Laffer? Are you aware that the Laffer Curve suggests that the optimal rate of taxation is potentially 50%?

http://www.cynicalnation.com/img2/laffer.gif

Here's what you'll want to do: Instead of citing op-eds from the Wall Street Journal which themselves link to pieces published by a "nonpartisan individual membership organization of state legislators which favors federalism and conservative public policy solutions," cite peer-reviewed empirical research in a reputable scholarly journal that relies on controlled econometric analysis to reach its conclusions. This crude comparison of alleged capital flight in different states is an analysis of raw data, and could, to use that old cliche, represent correlation and not causation.

[fj1200]

Arthur Laffer? Are you aware that the Laffer Curve suggests that the optimal rate of taxation is potentially 50%?

http://www.cynicalnation.com/img2/laffer.gif

:laugh2: To a simple-minded child perhaps. Are you aware that the driver of Federal revenues is GDP and NOT tax rates. Are you aware that the top marginal rates have been largely reduced since 1981 (and before with Kennedy) and the share paid by "the rich" has been climbing ever since? IMO one would look at the Laffer curve as multiple curves at various income levels. I would argue that the "rich" are to the right half of the curve while the lower income levels are to the left of the curve. This wouldn't even take into account possible curve shifting as other taxes are modified such as capital gains, dividends, corporate rate, etc.

[Little-Acorn]

What is meant by "income redistribution?

Sounds to me like you're implying that the income was somehow "distributed" by someone in the first place, and is now being "REdistributed", I guess in a different way.

But it was never "distributed" in the first place. A guy who wanted something you had, more than he wanted the money in his pocket, offered you a trade, and you agreed. You wound up with the money and he wound up with the thing (goods or your labor or whatever), and both of you are happy. And you made similar deals with other people, too.

But the money you got, wasn't "distributed" to you by somebody in charge of distributing, somebody who planned it all out. Many different people made transactions with you, and they were probably making other transactions with other people too at the same time, just as you were. And it all worked out, without having to be overseen by some all-knowing "distributor".

When somebody says he wants to "redistribute" it (or "spread the wealth around" as someone recently put it), it means he thinks all those transactions somehow "weren't good"... and that he thinks he can do better.

And that notion is completely ridiculous. There's no way he can make a fairer "distribution" of your money (and all those othe peoples') than you and they already have. What could be fairer that the "distribution" you and all the others have already happily agreed to?

When someone talks about "redistributing income", they are saying they think the money is theirs to take, and give to whom they want.

It's silly on several different planes. And arrogant wishful thinking, too.

[red states rule]

:laugh2: To a simple-minded child perhaps. Are you aware that the driver of Federal revenues is GDP and NOT tax rates. Are you aware that the top marginal rates have been largely reduced since 1981 (and before with Kennedy) and the share paid by "the rich" has been climbing ever since? IMO one would look at the Laffer curve as multiple curves at various income levels. I would argue that the "rich" are to the right half of the curve while the lower income levels are to the left of the curve. This wouldn't even take into account possible curve shifting as other taxes are modified such as capital gains, dividends, corporate rate, etc.

It is common sense if the government wants to tax an activity the government needs to encourage that activity

As taxes increase the activity decreases, people find ways around the taxes, or simply evade the tax (then they become Sec of the US Treasury)

When taxes are lowered, revenue to the government increases. That is a fact.

Right now businesses are not hiring due to the coming taxes, and mandates from Obamacare. things will not get better until taxes across the board are cut and government spending is cut back

[Missileman]

The rich? Economic crisis is an inevitable tendency of capitalism, but that doesn't require assignment of specific moral culpability to "the rich." Wealth inequities are simply another symptom of the core disease, though a partial cause of its perpetuation also.

Regardless, as has been explained to the rightists on this forum numerous times before, progressive taxation is not "unequal." The diminishing marginal utility of income in fact requires progressive taxation to ensure an equal burden of taxation, rather than the regressive burden that flat taxes would impose. The problem, as I've explained in the past, is that you are not relying on a rational analysis of sound economic policy to come to your conclusions; you are relying on your preconceived moral views about the association between wealth and virtue. As I said in another thread, this attitude is summarized in the cognitive linguist George Lakoff's book, Moral Politics:



My hypothesis then, as now, is this: This tendency is a facet of rightists' greater inclinations to analyze issues with emotional intuitions, as evidenced in Inbar et al.'s Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a794011402): "The uniquely human emotion of disgust is intimately connected to morality in many, perhaps all, cultures (Rozin, Lowery, Imada, & Haidt, 1999b). We report two studies suggesting that a predisposition to feel disgust (“disgust sensitivity”) is associated with more conservative political attitudes, especially for issues related to the moral dimension of purity. In the first study, we document a positive correlation between disgust sensitivity and self-reported conservatism in a broad sample of US adults. In Study 2 we show that while disgust sensitivity is associated with more conservative attitudes on a range of political issues, this relationship is strongest for purity-related issues—specifically, abortion and gay marriage."

Moreover, when political outlooks are understood as interconnected networks of policy views based on the same foundational moral axioms (which is why certain views tend to cluster together), it's understandable why their reactions to perceived "unfairness" would also be primarily guided by emotion.



I would disagree. For example, consider the perspective offered in Clemens and Heinemann's On the Effects of Redistribution on Growth and Entrepreneurial Risk-taking (http://www.springerlink.com/content/x42t622364325020/):



Even aside from specific considerations of dynamic efficiency, there is empirical research that suggests an inverse relationship between inequality and economic growth. We have, for instance, Persson and Tabellini's Is Inequality Harmful for Growth? (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2118070)



Unfortunately, a relatively lengthy history of experience on this board and others populated by persons with similar attitudes has taught me that the likes of rightists such as red states rule and mrs. kurt's princess will simply ignore evidence that does not agree with their perspective. If it's inconvenient to consider, the solution is to simply not consider it at all. It's worth noting that their moral views about the wealthy are themselves challenged by empirical evidence. Contrary to the utopian fantasy of the wealthy rising to the top through a lifetime of virtuous hard work and saving, economic research indicates that the bulk of aggregate capital accumulation is derived through intergenerational transfers, i.e. inheritances. Why should people be rewarded for an accident of birth or circumstance? Moreover, contrary to the similarly utopian fantasy of the American dream, people rising and falling according to how hard they are willing to work, there is greater social immobility in the U.S. and the UK than in continental Europe, particularly social democratic Scandinavia. I posted all of this evidence in the thread about poverty. As I expected, there was not a mature response.



If your interest is in the preservation and relatively smooth function of capitalism, there really aren't, as I just explained to fj1200. Incidentally, it's worth nothing that the various "values" of the wealthy that you mentioned are artificially socially constructed ones, and not actual material requisites of production and consumption. The difference between a material and social requisite of production, for example, is this: To operate a mine, material requisites such as excavators, explosives, drills, hydraulic equipment, etc. are required. All the money and credit in the world will do nothing without the requisite machinery. The "financing" needed is a social requisite. It is necessary only as long as capitalists' purchase of title deeds to land and equipment are recognized by legal and other social institutions as legitimate exercises of property ownership. And considering the empirical research that indicates that workers' ownership and management is more efficient and productive than the standard hierarchy that characterizes firms, this is simply a wasteful practice, the opportunity cost of which is greater economic production.

Fuck raising taxes until DC gets spending under control.

[Pagan]

Fuck raising taxes until DC gets spending under control.

http://www.rejecttheherd.net/sites/rejecttheherd.net/files/smileys/cheers.gif

[Sweetchuck]

It isn't really about innocence or guilt, when you come down to it. There's a few good reasons to not tax the rich.

1) They'll invest in the market, since they're doing it already: Let's face it, right now, we can use every dime of investment capital in our economy we can get.

2) They'll start up new businesses, or expand those they already own: This is pretty simple, if a person who is making money off a business has enough, they'll want to make more.

3) they'll spend it: You may not like Lindsay Lohan and her crowd, but the spoiled rich spend a ridiculous amount of money, and having more of it leftover will only increase the bleed.

As well, if it weren't for the US having the second highest in the world, we likely wouldn't be seeing so much of our industry going overseas, and a number would actually return.

The biggest issue I have with the income tax as a hole, though, is that it punishes success, and rewards failure. It isn't even limited to the rich either. My mom is a school bus driver for disabled kids, and the kids who get sent up for behavioral problems. Because she's actually good at her rather thankless job, she was given a raise a month or two ago. The 10% she got put her into the next tax bracket, which resulted in her taking home less money, which is all that people really care about on their paycheck in the end.

The issue is cutting taxes for the middle class moreso than the rich IMO. Yes the wealthy will invest in capital assets, create jobs and all that shit but the middle class drives the economy. You almost can't have one without the other.

In terms of recession, double-dip recession, the most important thing in curbing a recession is consumer confidence and the consumer by far is the middle class.

But still as someone correctly pointed out, none of that means shit for the most part if you also don't cut spending, and the current resident liberals don't appear interested in that avenue. Hell, we don't even have a fucking budget and that outrages me.

I'm all for a free-market capitalist system. We don't have that, it's more of an aristocracy in many respects and it goes back to the stupidity of the voting masses. On the liberal side, if BO hands out entitlements, he gets their vote. On the conservative side, if the wealthy invest a little in capital, that gets their vote.

Private enterprise has shifted from the entrepreneur to the mega corporations. That's not capitalism, it's privilege.

[red states rule]

The issue is cutting taxes for the middle class moreso than the rich IMO. Yes the wealthy will invest in capital assets, create jobs and all that shit but the middle class drives the economy. You almost can't have one without the other.

In terms of recession, double-dip recession, the most important thing in curbing a recession is consumer confidence and the consumer by far is the middle class.

But still as someone correctly pointed out, none of that means shit for the most part if you also don't cut spending, and the current resident liberals don't appear interested in that avenue. Hell, we don't even have a fucking budget and that outrages me.

I'm all for a free-market capitalist system. We don't have that, it's more of an aristocracy in many respects and it goes back to the stupidity of the voting masses. On the liberal side, if BO hands out entitlements, he gets their vote. On the conservative side, if the wealthy invest a little in capital, that gets their vote.

Private enterprise has shifted from the entrepreneur to the mega corporations. That's not capitalism, it's privilege.

Lets see....

the top1% pay about 40% of all federal income taxes

the top 25% pay about 85%

and the bottom 50% pay less then 3%

so how would cutting taxes for the middle class be better for the economy then cutting taxes for the people who pay the most in taxes?

Why not cut taxes for everyone and let everyone keep more of what they earn?

BTW those mega corporations need workers. Free up more operating capital for them them to grow and they will hire more people

[Sweetchuck]

Lets see....

the top1% pay about 40% of all federal income taxes

the top 25% pay about 85%

and the bottom 50% pay less then 3%

so how would cutting taxes for the middle class be better for the economy then cutting taxes for the people who pay the most in taxes?

Why not cut taxes for everyone and let everyone keep more of what they earn?

BTW those mega corporations need workers. Free up more operating capital for them them to grow and they will hire more people

http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/50456088.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=E41C9FE5C4AA0A143CE40D8DC1EF2E474ADDC59D954732E3 EED8B49ADC31AE26B01E70F2B3269972

[Sweetchuck]

Anyone who believes that the wealthy pay the majority of taxes is an idiot.

The data that Rushbots toss around is based on AGI, not total wealth, but hey - don't let me burst your bubble.

Any monkey can do the simple math, graduated income tax brackets will calculate a higher proportion of income tax based on AGI every time, but the informed and rational person would consider the ENTIRE tax obligation, not just AGI.

This is yet, YET another prime example of people wanting to believe what they want to believe and yet another example of pure stupidity.

From simple minds come simple ideas.

[red states rule]

Anyone who believes that the wealthy pay the majority of taxes is an idiot.

The data that Rushbots toss around is based on AGI, not total wealth, but hey - don't let me burst your bubble.

Any monkey can do the simple math, graduated income tax brackets will calculate a higher proportion of income tax based on AGI every time, but the informed and rational person would consider the ENTIRE tax obligation, not just AGI.

This is yet, YET another prime example of people wanting to believe what they want to believe and yet another example of pure stupidity.

From simple minds come simple ideas.

Boy did you stick your foot in your mouth on this one Sweets. Here are the numbers from the IRS

It is common knowledge the "rich" pay a huge majority of Federal Income taxes collected




1) The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government — the highest percentage in modern history — while the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden.

2) The share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.

3) To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.

4) Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.

http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/files/2009/07/073009taxes.jpg


http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/07/30/americas-top-1-percent-pay-40-percent-of-all-taxes/

[Sweetchuck]

I'd suggest that you are continuing to embarrass yourself but you have no understanding of what you're copying and pasting, hence you are incapable of embarrassment due to ignorance.

You really are pretty dimwitted.

Do you even know what AGI stands for? Just because you fill out a 1040 EZ doesn't mean everyone else does, but I'm wasting my time. You don't even have a basic understanding of simple tax concepts, explaining the rest of it would just incite you to calling me a RINO or something like that, it's all your capable of doing.

I guess everyone starts off a dumbass. I hope you're a fairly young person and someday when you gain a little lifes experience, it will hit you like a ton of (bucket carried) shit, although you are especially idiotic and I have a hunch you will stumble through life in a complete state of idiocy.

[Little-Acorn]

the informed and rational person would consider the ENTIRE tax obligation, not just AGI.
May we assume that the reason you have made no attempt to back up your bluster with actual numbers and/or examples, is because you are neither informed nor rational?

RedStates backed up HIS assertions with actual numbers, while you have done nothing but complain and call names.

From simple minds come simple ideas.

[Sweetchuck]

May we assume that the reason you have made no attempt to back up your bluster with actual numbers and/or examples, is because you are neither informed nor rational?

RedStates backed up HIS assertions with actual numbers, while you have done nothing but complain and call names.

From simple minds come simple ideas.

I can't find data that shows total tax obligation, but I really didn't look that hard for it. It doesn't matter.

Here - let me educate you a little. Adjusted gross income is the basis for applying income tax rates. If the wealthy only had sources of income that
impacted AGI, then I'd say you had an argument but assuming that AGI is the bottom line tax base for the wealthy only shows how ignorant average people are on sophisticated tax structures.

Since the wealthy have complex tax structures, they are able to take advantage of various tax strategies that enable them to minimize their total tax liability. The wealthy who invest, own capital have greater sources of wealth than earned income.

Any of this making sense?

Tracking this stuff is equally difficult, so the common dipshit stops at the point where their understanding of the tax structure stops - at AGI. Using AGI as the basis for an argument that the wealthy pay a majority of tax is only considering a small part of ALL income, wealth, etc. generated and ALL tax paid (or sheltered).

I don't expect the dimwitted to understand these concepts, mostly because they refuse to. It goes against the grain of all of the bullshit they are programmed to believe.

Here - read this. It might be the first step in your grand awakening:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece


Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

This is the point I'm making, even Buffett agrees with me. Yeah, it makes Rushbots like RSR shit their pants and copy/paste yet more shit they don't understand, but the wealthy have privileges in both tax strategies and gaining more wealth.

My point (and Buffett's) is that there is no tax equality. Never has been, never will be plus there is little or no entrepreneurship anymore. The wealthy have a lock on the so called "capitalist" market that we have.

But the sheep keep lining up demanding more privileges for the wealthy while they struggle to keep the shit jobs they're allowed to have.

It's really beyond pathetic how stupid people are and they are getting what they deserve for their stupidity.



.

[Sweetchuck]

Man, little acorn sure jumped off of the forum fast.

I guess I should brace for more copy/paste of tax rates on AGI.

If anyone hasn't see the movie Idiocracy, I highly recommend it. There's nothing futuristic about that movie, it's the world we live in now.

It's the world of RSR's and little acorn's.

"it's got ELECTROLYTES"

:laugh::laugh::laugh:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1fKzw05Q5A&p=FA9CC89FC1DA80F1&playnext=1&index=5

[red states rule]

May we assume that the reason you have made no attempt to back up your bluster with actual numbers and/or examples, is because you are neither informed nor rational?

RedStates backed up HIS assertions with actual numbers, while you have done nothing but complain and call names.

From simple minds come simple ideas.

Based on his past posts, why would you be surprised?

Only "conservatives" like McCain openly talked about how opposing tax cuts for the people who actually pay the taxes collected

[red states rule]

Man, little acorn sure jumped off of the forum fast.

I guess I should brace for more copy/paste of tax rates on AGI.

If anyone hasn't see the movie Idiocracy, I highly recommend it. There's nothing futuristic about that movie, it's the world we live in now.

It's the world of RSR's and little acorn's.

"it's got ELECTROLYTES"

:laugh::laugh::laugh:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1fKzw05Q5A&p=FA9CC89FC1DA80F1&playnext=1&index=5

Let me make you feel at home Sweets

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zhhkF3dqXR0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zhhkF3dqXR0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Little-Acorn]

I can't find data that shows total tax obligation, but I really didn't look that hard for it.

That sound you all just heard, was Sweetchuck running away from the argument at high speed, flinging more generalities and excuses over his shoulder as he goes. :lame2:

[Sweetchuck]

And neither of you two rocket surgeons have any idea about what I posted.

A little one-liner jab from dumbass #2 and some conservative radio rhetoric from dumbass #1.

No discussion on the topic, no discussion on my replies, nothing intelligible.

What a fucking shocker.

Now that I'm done totally owning you two pinheads, I need to move on to something a little more intellectually stimulating than slapping you two dimwits around.

[Sweetchuck]

Since these two monkeys are completely incapable of discussing anything, I'll throw the issue out to the rest of the board.

No, I won't treat you like dicks either. I only get my asshole on when I encounter blatant, offensive idiocy of the likes of these chowderheads.

Anyone got any thoughts on the matter?

Agna - you have a constant chip on your shoulder, any comments?

[red states rule]

And neither of you two rocket surgeons have any idea about what I posted.

A little one-liner jab from dumbass #2 and some conservative radio rhetoric from dumbass #1.

No discussion on the topic, no discussion on my replies, nothing intelligible.

What a fucking shocker.

Now that I'm done totally owning you two pinheads, I need to move on to something a little more intellectually stimulating than slapping you two dimwits around.

and you are really not worth much more of my time. I already exposed you as a liar as far as the rich NOT paying a majority of taxes as you bellowed and I did it with IRS numbers

You have the chip on your shoulder - a much bigger on then Agna could even pick up and place on his shoulder

[fj1200]

The rich? Economic crisis is an inevitable tendency of capitalism, but that doesn't require assignment of specific moral culpability to "the rich." Wealth inequities are simply another symptom of the core disease, though a partial cause of its perpetuation also.

False. The core disease is excessive intervention in the smooth workings of the markets.


Regardless, as has been explained to the rightists on this forum numerous times before, progressive taxation is not "unequal." The diminishing marginal utility of income in fact requires progressive taxation to ensure an equal burden of taxation, rather than the regressive burden that flat taxes would impose. The problem, as I've explained in the past, is that you are not relying on a rational analysis of sound economic policy to come to your conclusions; you are relying on your preconceived moral views about the association between wealth and virtue. As I said in another thread, this attitude is summarized in the cognitive linguist George Lakoff's book, Moral Politics:

The flat tax is not regressive. The Social Security tax is regressive and I have a feeling that you're all for that one.


I would disagree. For example, consider the perspective offered in Clemens and Heinemann's On the Effects of Redistribution on Growth and Entrepreneurial Risk-taking (http://www.springerlink.com/content/x42t622364325020/):

Considered. Nice two sector model. :rolleyes:


Even aside from specific considerations of dynamic efficiency, there is empirical research that suggests an inverse relationship between inequality and economic growth. We have, for instance, Persson and Tabellini's Is Inequality Harmful for Growth? (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2118070)

That's quite the stretch.

http://lanekenworthy.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/doesmoreequality-figure1-test.png?w=380


If your interest is in the preservation and relatively smooth function of capitalism, there really aren't, as I just explained to fj1200.

What do you think you just explained?

[fj1200]

The data that Rushbots toss around is based on AGI, not total wealth...

So?

[fj1200]

I can't find data that shows total tax obligation, but I really didn't look that hard for it. It doesn't matter.

It matters.


Here - read this. It might be the first step in your grand awakening:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece


Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

This is the point I'm making, even Buffett agrees with me. Yeah, it makes Rushbots like RSR shit their pants and copy/paste yet more shit they don't understand, but the wealthy have privileges in both tax strategies and gaining more wealth.

His secretary paid $18,000 and Buffett paid $8,142,000; seems to back up RSR doesn't it? But besides that the point is that there is economic benefit to capital being taxed favorably to income. Maybe a chairman or CEO shouldn't be taxed as capital but more income but that's a different discussion.

[Kathianne]

"Income distribution" certainly has a socialist connotation to it, but the thing that many people conveniently ignore is that the freemarket market that exists here isn't "free" by any means. By that I mean that the wealthy enjoy privileges that the not-so-wealthy don't enjoy. It's easier for them to make money.

I don't disagree with the theory that the wealthy keep the capitalist machine rolling (by throwing bones to the rest of us), but I don't subscribe to the theory that the wealthy are completely innocent and deserving either by any stretch.

Me either. Though the same could be said for the middle class and the poor, don't you think?