G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
During FY 2010, the federal government collected approximately $2.16 trillion in tax revenue.
Primary receipt categories included individual income taxes (42%), Social Security/Social Insurance taxes (40%), and corporate taxes (9%).
Other types included excise, estate and gift taxes.
Tax revenues have averaged approximately 18.3% of GDP over the 1970-2009 period, generally ranging plus or minus 2% from that level.
Tax revenues declined from $2.5 trillion in 2008 to $2.1 trillion in 2009, and remained at that level in 2010.
During 2009, individual income taxes declined 20%, while corporate taxes declined 50%.
At 14.9% of GDP, the 2009 and 2010 collections were the lowest level of the past 50 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Primary receipt categories included individual income taxes (42%), Social Security/Social Insurance taxes (40%), and corporate taxes (9%).
Other types included excise, estate and gift taxes.
Tax revenues have averaged approximately 18.3% of GDP over the 1970-2009 period, generally ranging plus or minus 2% from that level.
Tax revenues declined from $2.5 trillion in 2008 to $2.1 trillion in 2009, and remained at that level in 2010.
During 2009, individual income taxes declined 20%, while corporate taxes declined 50%.
At 14.9% of GDP, the 2009 and 2010 collections were the lowest level of the past 50 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Again, the sheer numbers do not support your theory. If we taxed the Top 1% at a rate of 100%, it wouldn't cover 1/4 of the amount over budget Obama is for this year alone. Raising the taxes back to pre-Bush era rates, wouldn't generate enough revenue to pay for a fucking MONTH of the Obama deficit! In fact, if we go by what has historically happened whenever we've increased taxes on the top marginal income earners, we will actually generate LESS revenue!
Let's be clear about why this is such an attractive mantra for the left... MOST of us are not among the Top 1%, so it is EASY to generate class envy against a small minority of people in which most of us do not belong. The fact remains, if we just abandoned the Constitution entirely, and killed the Top 1%, confiscated their entire fortunes, it would not fund the government for a single year, much less pay off any debt! This is how far out in left field loony land you are!
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
As usual, doublewide Dixie is long on exclamation points and short on evidence to prove his claims as he ignores the facts.
Between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts.
The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent.
Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation:
The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit.
Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007.
Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967.
This did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires.
Events beyond Bush's control necessitated the Afghanistan war.
He later decided to invade Iraq, and pushed through unpaid-for domestic expansions of government, like Medicare Part D.
Deficits and government spending as a share of GDP grew during the Bush administration.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/06/happy_10th_birthday_bush_tax_cuts.html
Between 2001 and 2008, the bottom 80 percent of filers received about 35 percent of the cuts.
The top 20 percent received about 65 percent—and the top 1 percent alone claimed 38 percent.
Put simply, the aughts were a decade of income stagnation:
The tax cuts failed to bolster most taxpayers' earnings, even before the recession hit.
Median real wages actually dropped from 2003 to 2007.
Household income from business-cycle peak to business-cycle peak declined for the first time since tracking started in 1967.
This did not hold true for the nation's billionaires and millionaires.
Events beyond Bush's control necessitated the Afghanistan war.
He later decided to invade Iraq, and pushed through unpaid-for domestic expansions of government, like Medicare Part D.
Deficits and government spending as a share of GDP grew during the Bush administration.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/06/happy_10th_birthday_bush_tax_cuts.html
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Now you want to change the parameters of the argument, and mealy-mouth around about the percentages of cuts, as if that has a damn thing to do with revenues or who is actually paying the taxes. Let's stick with your original premise, that failing to increase top marginal rates is responsible for our deficit or debt. That is simply ignorance on display, as the numbers don't jive. You can tax the top 1% at a rate of 100%, and still only cover the cost Obama was over budget for one quarter of 2011. You could shoot them in the head and steal all their wealth, and it wouldn't pay for a single year of Obama's budget!
And I will use as many goddamn exclamation points as I want to, you don't control what I type, shithead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vader
Republicans Fear Me
Indeed. As such, it is time for those idiots to be removed from office ... starting with John Boehner.
Vader
Republicans Fear Me
The solution of your kind is to fix the budget by cutting jobs. That isn't going to work and it's nothing more than an attack on the middle class. It's time the wealthiest 1% lost every tax loophole they have.
Vader
Republicans Fear Me
It's not class envy. Saying so makes you an apologist for the 1% and that makes you a traitor. The middle class is NOT going to be destroyed because the 1% do not want to pay their fair share of taxes. It's time the 1% paid up or got out. You don't want to pay taxes, then Mr. 1% you can turn in your citizenship, leave the country, and never come back.
Vader
Republicans Fear Me
WRONG. The problem has ALWAYS been the rich and their willingness to lie, cheat, steal, and corrupt. You can keep singing the Republican's song all you want. You are wrong. Republican sellouts have been, and will continue to be the main issue. Republicans and their greed caused the economy and they don't even have the balls to admit it. They are cowards.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The wealthiest 1% don't have any tax loophole that you and I don't also have, we only have one US Tax Code, and it applies to all earners of income. The middle class might not get to use the tax loopholes and incentives the wealthiest 1% get to use, but they pay a smaller percentage of their income. The wealthiest pay the highest percentage of income.
The 1% already pay their fair share and then some, they pay an average of 28%, the top 5% pay 20%... The lower 50% pay virtually nothing. This is why, whenever you hear about "tax cuts" they are always "for the rich" ....the "rich" are the only people who are paying substantial taxes. 48% of the country do not pay income tax at all, and the bottom 25% actually receive tax credits for money they never paid in taxes. If we are to discuss "paying fair shares" when it comes to taxation, we need to first address the millions of Americans who aren't paying tax, but getting Earned Income Credit. When do they pay their "fair share?"
Listen to how utterly STUPID your Socialist left-wing rhetoric is! Have you once ever thought about, you are protesting the fact that people can become wealthy? You are advocating a societal system where people are forbidden to obtain wealth! The prospect of ever having more than you vitally need, is out of the question. Your dreams and ambitions are meaningless in such an environment, you can never achieve them. You no longer have the freedom to go out there and use your intelligence, skill or talent, to earn a better way of life for yourself, you are relegated forever, to work for the state, doing what the authority would have you do. THIS is what you advocate and promote, and what you want to turn America into.
We have a system of justice to deal with people who cheat, steal, and become corrupt. That is it's purpose and function, and it has worked well for hundreds of years. We have a Congress to regulate and oversee monopolistic capitalism, unfair labor practices, unscrupulous business dealings, unfair trade advantages, and on and on. And if something new should arise, our Founding Fathers brilliantly constructed a system where the people could adopt new measures to deal with anything thrown their way. We don't need to transform America into the Soviet Socialist Republic. We know from history, the Communist Socialist European ideals, will ultimately fail and bring about disaster of epic proportions, yet retarded little idiots like you, don't appear to have the first inkling of intelligence, when it comes to history, so you are all hell-bent on repeating it. And maybe that's what needs to happen, maybe America needs to endure a couple hundred years of starvation and hopelessness? Maybe then, a new spirit of freedom will emerge, and future generations can do a better job of educating the mush-brains about Communist failure? In any event, mark my word, freedom will ultimately prevail, it can't be driven out of men, the will to be free will endure forever.
Vader
Republicans Fear Me
Yes, we all know you're owned by the 1%. The wealthy need to be paying more because they have more. The rich and their greed (thanks to their republican slave hordes) caused the economy to be what it is. They are responsible for fixing it. While I know the right is not big on responsibility or doing the right thing, the world as it is leaves thedm no other choice. They will comply or the economy will fail.
Vader
Republicans Fear Me
Once the republicans and their cronies are removed from Washington, the world will be a better place.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, I am not owned by anyone. The wealthy already pay more because they have more, are you not paying attention?
In order for "the rich" to "fix the economy" you need to encourage them to make money, not discourage them, which is what you are doing now. You see, as I have told pinheads repeatedly, "the rich" don't NEED to earn an income, like you and I. We NEED to earn our incomes, to pay bills and such, but a "rich" person, already has the wealth to pay their bills and live comfortably, and they really don't give two shits about the economy. In fact, they tend to get some pretty good deals on things, as people desperately try to keep their heads above water.
The economy is in a mess because our Congress refused to cut spending, and this Administration has declared war on capitalism. Until those two things are rectified, the economy will remain sluggish at best. And let us be clear for the record here, the "responsibility" for all of this, falls squarely on the shoulders of the president, and that would be President Obama, the current president. Yes, I know, Bush got us into all this with his spending and wars, but in 2008, Obama ran for president with the promise that he could fix things, and he hasn't. So now, he will be held accountable by the people.
Vader
Republicans Fear Me
They have more and they need to be forced to pay for the damage caused by their greedy business buddies and republican cronies caused. When they and their cronies bring all jobs that went overseas; we can talk about lowering their tax rates. Until then, they need to receive the same treatment they have visited on the rest of us.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
But that isn't going to happen, we don't live in a fantasy world, we live in the real world. If you raise income taxes on the wealthy, they just stop earning incomes, it's not worth it anymore. If you make it harder for them to do business overseas, they will move or shut down the operations, you can't force them to invest their money the way you want them to. You are allowing emotions to cloud your judgement, and it's to your own detriment.
It's important that you remember, the wealthy are wealthy already, they have everything they need in life, and by the word of the Constitution, you simply can not take their money. You can raise taxes on the income they make, but if they are wealthy already, they have no NEED to make income. Because they are wealthy, they know how to make income, and for the most part, they enjoy doing that, but not if you have made it so restrictive they can't keep the benefits of profit from their efforts... what's the point? It's like demanding you show up at work every week, and do what you do, but we're not going to actually PAY you... would you still show up?
Another thing you need to think about is this... Wealthy people are not stupid, they tend to be pretty smart when it comes to finances and money, it's how they got to be wealthy for the most part. The more you try to 'punish' them, the more they will find ways to outsmart you and keep their fortunes protected. The price of gold is now over $1,700 an ounce, why do you suppose that is? Obviously, it's because a lot of people are buying it, and the increased demand has driven up the cost. Why is there such a sudden demand for gold? Could it be, wealthy people who once used their fortunes to make more money, are now 'investing' in something secure, that you can't confiscate?
Ah yes, that pesky Constitution... if only there were a way to legitimately take their wealth from them! But there's not. And even if you did manage to do that, even if you could abolish the Constitution and execute the top 1% for crimes against humanity, and confiscate the totality of their fortunes, it would only be enough money to pay for a fraction of the debt we currently owe. Once that drop in the bucket was made, we would still be in considerable debt, and our society would be without the people who know how to make money and generate prosperity. What do you suppose happens then? No more wealthy people to invest and take risks on new ventures, to create new jobs, to drive the economy. You have literally cut off your nose to spite your face.
Alias
Banned
You want to talk about greed? Govt is the greediest of all. Who makes more money on a gallon of gasoline, the govt or the oil company?
sedan
red panda
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
*sigh* ...Yes, when we switched from the gold standard, all currency which was gold, was turned in. The government didn't confiscate this, they bought it. The Constitution does not allow the government to take your property, it's in the 4th Amendment.
sedan
red panda
Suppose they buy your gold and then tax what you are paid? There's not much difference between that and a one step confiscation.
An investment in gold isn't necessarily safe from the reach of government.