dreamdancer 0 #76 April 8, 2010 Quote Quote When the top 1% owns 42.2% of the financial wealth of the USA, the top 20% owns 93% of the wealth of the USA, leaving the remaining 80% with just 7% of the financial wealth (2007 data) it seems to me that the "rich" are getting off pretty lightly. so a few people have most of the money. You don't reference any downsides, yet feel they're getting off lightly. I can only take that to mean that the government should take their money and give it to the poor. Redistribution of wealth? is that your game? the rich can pay the national deficit - they caused it stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #77 April 8, 2010 Quote Apparently Exxon Mobil (albeit a corporation) is among those that didn't pay any income tax in 2009: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/ ETA: Quote Sucks to be poor/homeless/unemployed/disabled/ExxonMobil fixie. That's funny, seeing as how they have not published their 2009 annual report...Based on their 2008 report, ExxonMobil paid $36.5B in income taxes on $81.75B income. Nice try though...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #78 April 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteIn 2007, the top 0.01% of earners took 6% of the nation's earnings. The top 1% took 23% of the nation's earnings. The top 10% took 49% of the nation's earnings. There's not a whole lot left to tax by the time you get to the bottom 50%. good point - clearly a flat tax in 2007 would have been a very progressive tax that would still have everyone contributing proportionately to what they earned, but still having all citizens paying for those roads, schools and protection Yep, great idea, taxing someone who is already below the poverty line. I can see why the right likes that idea.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #79 April 8, 2010 Quote raising the minimum wage doesn't increase inflation yes it will. it was explained to you in detail in another thread. your response was to have the businesses borrow money. Because somehow you seemed to think that businesses borrowing money wasn't as bad for the economy as people borrowing money. so have your economical misconceptions. That's fine with me. You don't listen to reason anyway, and won't change you mind. Likely because you're just stirring shit anyway.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #80 April 8, 2010 QuoteQuote When the top 1% owns 42.2% of the financial wealth of the USA, the top 20% owns 93% of the wealth of the USA, leaving the remaining 80% with just 7% of the financial wealth (2007 data) it seems to me that the "rich" are getting off pretty lightly. so a few people have most of the money. You don't reference any downsides, yet feel they're getting off lightly. I can only take that to mean that the government should take their money and give it to the poor. Redistribution of wealth? is that your game? No, we take their money and use it to pay for roads, bridges, the army, the navy, the air force, the marines, the national parks, the FAA, the NTSB, OSHA, MSHA (so maybe our coal mines don't keep killing miners), the CDC, defense research, energy research, the NSF, Pell grants, the coast guard, border guards, NIH, the FBI, the CIA, NWS, the Secret Service, the NSA, and all the other things that make this a GREAT nation that pays its way as opposed to a mediocre one that borrows borrows and borrows.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #81 April 8, 2010 Quote Quote raising the minimum wage doesn't increase inflation yes it will. it was explained to you in detail in another thread. you mean you gave your opinion - but no evidence stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #82 April 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote raising the minimum wage doesn't increase inflation yes it will. it was explained to you in detail in another thread. you mean you gave your opinion - but no evidence and interestingly enough I wasn't the only one stating the obvious in that thread. yeah... so show me the evidence that it doesn't cause inflation. And then I'll wink at you too. I'd call you ignorant, but we've tried to educate you. You're just stubborn.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #83 April 8, 2010 Quote No, we take their money and use it to pay for roads, bridges, the army, the navy, the air force, the marines, the national parks, the FAA, the NTSB, OSHA, MSHA (so maybe our coal mines don't keep killing miners), the CDC, defense research, energy research, the NSF, Pell grants, the coast guard, border guards, NIH, the FBI, the CIA, NWS, the Secret Service, the NSA, and all the other things that make this a GREAT nation that pays its way as opposed to a mediocre one that borrows borrows and borrows. so if the government is just going to take all money you make above a certain line (income cap) what is the motivation to better one's self? Or are you just proposing a tax increase. (because "we take their money" didn't sound like just a tax increase)-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #84 April 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote raising the minimum wage doesn't increase inflation yes it will. it was explained to you in detail in another thread. you mean you gave your opinion - but no evidence I'd call you ignorant, but we've tried to educate you. You're just stubborn. still no evidence - just your opinion (and you're feeling out on a limb so you've gone to the royal 'we')stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #85 April 8, 2010 Quote I'm a liberal... We figured that out, bill. We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #86 April 8, 2010 Quote income cap Why are you suggesting an income cap? You must be a communist.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #87 April 8, 2010 QuoteLiberals equate paying taxes to caring. No, I equate it to paying for services, like roads, air traffic control, emergent medical and fire services, the military, NASA etc. Some of them are used by everyone; some are used by only a few. And what service is provided by funneling tax dollars to checks in the mail for 40% of the population. QuoteCorrect. It just means you are supporting the US government with all its expenses - the military, the CDC etc. It behooves us to make sure those are good uses of money, because later we don't have a choice on what to support. You think checks in the mail is a good use of money? QuoteI do find it funny that the very people who wave the "SUPPORT THE TROOPS!" flag would also be the first to refuse to do so if they had that option. That's quite an assumption. I find it funny the very people who tout the "SUPPORT THE POOR" would rather just tax someone else to pay for it and call it a day. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #88 April 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote It's so easy to complain that other people aren't doing enough for your agendas, isn't it? you seem to find it easy Do try and keep up. I realize it's difficult without an alternet link to copy and paste. increasing the minimum wage will mean a lot more people paying income tax - problem solved for you Not for anyone who's taken an entry level economics class -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rstanley0312 1 #89 April 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote When the top 1% owns 42.2% of the financial wealth of the USA, the top 20% owns 93% of the wealth of the USA, leaving the remaining 80% with just 7% of the financial wealth (2007 data) it seems to me that the "rich" are getting off pretty lightly. so a few people have most of the money. You don't reference any downsides, yet feel they're getting off lightly. I can only take that to mean that the government should take their money and give it to the poor. Redistribution of wealth? is that your game? the rich can pay the national deficit - they caused it Dreamdancer..... still wondering.... are you a US citizen? Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #90 April 8, 2010 QuoteQuoteLiberals equate paying taxes to caring. No, I equate it to paying for services, like roads, air traffic control, emergent medical and fire services, the military, NASA etc. Some of them are used by everyone; some are used by only a few. And what service is provided by funneling tax dollars to checks in the mail for 40% of the population. You really think most of that 47% gets government checks? Not likely. Reduce that even more by retirees who get SS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #91 April 8, 2010 QuoteBased on their 2008 report, ExxonMobil paid $36.5B in income taxes on $81.75B income. The author has retracted his original publication, after speaking directly with Exxon Mobile. He now admits that they actually paid $46 billion in 2009 US income taxes, and $15 billion in taxes to other countries: http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes/ His misunderstanding was about how the taxes were recorded.Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #92 April 8, 2010 >and you're feeling out on a limb so you've gone to the royal 'we' No, it was the usual sense meaning "me and others." I was one of the others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #93 April 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote In 2007, the top 0.01% of earners took 6% of the nation's earnings. The top 1% took 23% of the nation's earnings. The top 10% took 49% of the nation's earnings. There's not a whole lot left to tax by the time you get to the bottom 50%. good point - clearly a flat tax in 2007 would have been a very progressive tax that would still have everyone contributing proportionately to what they earned, but still having all citizens paying for those roads, schools and protection Yep, great idea, taxing someone who is already below the poverty line. I can see why the right likes that idea. How do you propose they contribute so they don't just use their voting power to vote for more gov't programs they get the benefit of, but don't have to pay for? It wouldn't be $1000's per person, probably would max out way less than $500. It's not so much the contribution level that's important as much as them feeling they have a stake in this. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #94 April 8, 2010 >How do you propose they contribute so they don't just use their voting >power to vote for more gov't programs they get the benefit of, but don't >have to pay for? We could have other federal taxes and fees beyond income taxes. For example, we could tax them for social security and medicare even if they pay no income tax. Perhaps you could start a political movement to add these taxes to everyone's paycheck, whether rich or poor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #95 April 8, 2010 QuoteQuote No, we take their money and use it to pay for roads, bridges, the army, the navy, the air force, the marines, the national parks, the FAA, the NTSB, OSHA, MSHA (so maybe our coal mines don't keep killing miners), the CDC, defense research, energy research, the NSF, Pell grants, the coast guard, border guards, NIH, the FBI, the CIA, NWS, the Secret Service, the NSA, and all the other things that make this a GREAT nation that pays its way as opposed to a mediocre one that borrows borrows and borrows. so if the government is just going to take all money you make above a certain line (income cap) what is the motivation to better one's self? Or are you just proposing a tax increase. (because "we take their money" didn't sound like just a tax increase) Not very clever to SNIP YOUR OWN words "I can only take that to mean that the government should take their money" from my response and then turn around and try to make out that I did anything other than copy YOUR words. Intellectual dishonesty at its best.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #96 April 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote In 2007, the top 0.01% of earners took 6% of the nation's earnings. The top 1% took 23% of the nation's earnings. The top 10% took 49% of the nation's earnings. There's not a whole lot left to tax by the time you get to the bottom 50%. good point - clearly a flat tax in 2007 would have been a very progressive tax that would still have everyone contributing proportionately to what they earned, but still having all citizens paying for those roads, schools and protection Yep, great idea, taxing someone who is already below the poverty line. I can see why the right likes that idea. How do you propose they contribute so they don't just use their voting power to vote for more gov't programs they get the benefit of, but don't have to pay for? It wouldn't be $1000's per person, probably would max out way less than $500. It's not so much the contribution level that's important as much as them feeling they have a stake in this. I guess you loved the Poll Tax.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #97 April 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote raising the minimum wage doesn't increase inflation yes it will. it was explained to you in detail in another thread. you mean you gave your opinion - but no evidence I'd call you ignorant, but we've tried to educate you. You're just stubborn. still no evidence - just your opinion (and you're feeling out on a limb so you've gone to the royal 'we') the 'we' was the several people in the other thread who shared my opinion. and you haven't provided anything other than opinion either so bite me-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #98 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote No, we take their money and use it to pay for roads, bridges, the army, the navy, the air force, the marines, the national parks, the FAA, the NTSB, OSHA, MSHA (so maybe our coal mines don't keep killing miners), the CDC, defense research, energy research, the NSF, Pell grants, the coast guard, border guards, NIH, the FBI, the CIA, NWS, the Secret Service, the NSA, and all the other things that make this a GREAT nation that pays its way as opposed to a mediocre one that borrows borrows and borrows. so if the government is just going to take all money you make above a certain line (income cap) what is the motivation to better one's self? Or are you just proposing a tax increase. (because "we take their money" didn't sound like just a tax increase) Not very clever to SNIP YOUR OWN words "I can only take that to mean that the government should take their money" from my response and then turn around and try to make out that I did anything other than copy YOUR words. Intellectual dishonesty at its best. wow... if you think that's what I'm up to you have issues to work out. Yeah... I was trying to goad a response out of you but I didn't think I'd get the paranoid "trying to make me look bad" kind of response.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #99 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuote Regardless, how much revenue are you going to get out of that 40% of the population that only owns 0.2% of the wealth (according to Ron Paul). I'd tax the bottom 40% earning 12% of the income (in 2006 according to the U.S. Census Bureau) enough that they feel the effect of government spending and resist unnecessary increases. I've been trying to post something on similar lines, but fighting some really dumb web proxies that blank out my writing. Each time the writing gets worse. The red states take more in services than they pay, support wars that they don't pay for. Why should they care? It's not their money! Even if there isn't a large income from this half, they should be have a direct stake. Social Security generated large surpluses from taxes on income up to the ~75%. There is money there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #100 April 9, 2010 Quotepussy's they are called pussy's That's "pussies," which is the plural of "pussy." "Pussy's" is the possessive. For example: "Those pussies like to play with the ball of yarn. I am not sure which pussy's ball of yarn it is, but all the pussies play with it." I may have flunked English, but I am pretty sure about this one. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
