Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: The_Hammer on November 30, 2012, 11:46:12 AM
-
Obama wants to raise taxes on the ultra wealthy, with medium cuts to social security and medicare.
Republicans want to close tax loopholes on the ultra wealthy, with large cuts to social security and medicare.
Obama proposed his plan and was laughed outta the room by Republicans:
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/884276/thumbs/r-MITCH-MCCONNELL-FISCAL-CLIFF-large570.jpg?4)
McConnell told the Weekly Standard that he "burst into laughter" as Geithner outlined the plan.
"GOP aides say Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner presented an offer calling for $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue over the coming decade, extending the 2 percentage point payroll tax deduction or something comparable to it and $50 billion in stimulus spending on infrastructure projects.
The White House plan calls for $960 billion over the coming decade by increasing tax rates and taxes on investment income on upper-bracket earners and $600 billion in additional taxes. Republicans view the offer as a step backward with the fiscal cliff an economy-rattling set of automatic spending cuts and tax increases looming at years' end."
-
USA is constantly moving backwards with this moron in charge it seems.
-
Obama wants to raise taxes on the ultra wealthy, with medium cuts to social security and medicare.
Republicans want to close tax loopholes on the ultra wealthy, with large cuts to social security and medicare.
Obama proposed his plan and was laughed outta the room by Republicans:
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/884276/thumbs/r-MITCH-MCCONNELL-FISCAL-CLIFF-large570.jpg?4)
McConnell told the Weekly Standard that he "burst into laughter" as Geithner outlined the plan.
"GOP aides say Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner presented an offer calling for $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue over the coming decade, extending the 2 percentage point payroll tax deduction or something comparable to it and $50 billion in stimulus spending on infrastructure projects.
The White House plan calls for $960 billion over the coming decade by increasing tax rates and taxes on investment income on upper-bracket earners and $600 billion in additional taxes. Republicans view the offer as a step backward with the fiscal cliff an economy-rattling set of automatic spending cuts and tax increases looming at years' end."
Raising taxes has NEVER worked in the long run, it's a short term solution. More problems in the long run. You don't raise taxes, it kills the private business sector. Again, it's a commonsense thing. raising taxes on the rich will do zero to help the economy.
-
One other thing..the title of this thread. I stand with both but he's killing both, ESPECIALLY the middle class. Can't believe people fell for it.
-
Spending needs to be cut and cut dramatically! Where it is cut from is a whole other subject, but I can't seem to remember one time where raising taxes did anything to help. Common democrat practice is to say, raise taxes and we'll cut spending. Well the taxes get raised but the spending cuts never happen.
-
No reason the ultra rich shouldn't pay 30% if the middle class pays 30%.
Business taxes were much higher during the most prosperous times (50's-60's), but there wasn't the international competition back then.
Bottom line is, spending is the problem. Wasteful and corrupt spending specifcally.
-
Anybody against severe taxing of the ultra rich is either ultra rich or utterly blind
-
I stand with the rich AND the middle class. It's the fucking leeches who think they are entitled to everything for free not so much. Take your hippie go free free nonsense and go kill yourself. Hope this helps.
-
Yes let's lower the taxes on rich because some day I will be super rich and will benefit from those tax breaks. ::)
-
Anybody against severe taxing of the ultra rich is either ultra rich or utterly blind
Or understands economics.
-
Or understands economics.
yes, if by "economics" you mean liberal economics and adhere to the right of property doctrine of rights as proposed by the forefathers of our liberal economy.
There is a certain guy called something like Carlos Marx that unoderstood economics better than me and you and made some VERY good points, fyi.
-
The idea is that if you give the rich tax breaks their businesses will have more money and will lead to the creation of jobs. This is called "Trickle Down Economics" which has been proven NOT to work time and time again.
-
obama want to take money from everyone
then give it to rich at top
I don't like obama
-
Anybody against severe taxing of the ultra rich is either ultra rich or utterly blind
Obviously you're utterly blind, jealous or just flat out don't understand. Tell me again how taxing the shit out of the rich is going to do any good besides putting more people out of work. What makes someone like yourself think you're entitled to someone elses wealth. What makes you believe that government knows what to do with money more than the wealthy?
-
The idea is that if you give the rich tax breaks their businesses will have more money and will lead to the creation of jobs. This is called "Trickle Down Economics" which has been proven NOT to work time and time again.
My thoughts exactly. They want tax breaks because they are job creates make the tax breaks proportionate to and based soley on the jobs they create and keep in this country. Business loves the philosophy of incentives so much they should llove this approach. It provides actual incentives to create and keep jobs in the US.
-
yes, if by "economics" you mean liberal economics and adhere to the right of property doctrine of rights as proposed by the forefathers of our liberal economy.
There is a certain guy called something like Carlos Marx that unoderstood economics better than me and you and made some VERY good points, fyi.
Being Marxist is just like saying I'm an idiot and I don't understand economics.
-
The idea is that if you give the rich tax breaks their businesses will have more money and will lead to the creation of jobs. This is called "Trickle Down Economics" which has been proven NOT to work time and time again.
Depends on where this "proof" came from.
-
yes, if by "economics" you mean liberal economics and adhere to the right of property doctrine of rights as proposed by the forefathers of our liberal economy.
There is a certain guy called something like Carlos Marx that unoderstood economics better than me and you and made some VERY good points, fyi.
Carlos Marx? Or Karl Marx? :D
-
Obviously you're utterly blind, jealous or just flat out don't understand. Tell me again how taxing the shit out of the rich is going to do any good besides putting more people out of work. What makes someone like yourself think you're entitled to someone elses wealth. What makes you believe that government knows what to do with money more than the wealthy?
I luckily come a from a wealthy family, and can say I have a very good education (I am an upper class Chilean).
Taxing the shit out of the rich is fair because of distributive justice (think John Rawls and his two criteria for social development). Not only that, the ultra rich have idle wealth that generates no extra goodness neither to them (as they are unable to sepnd every penny they save up) nor to society because the taxation is low.
"What makes someone like yourself think you're entitled to someone elses wealth. What makes you believe that government knows what to do with money more than the wealthy?"
This is how I know you have never read a book on theory of right or political philosphy, its much much more than MY MMONEYYZZZ I DO WHATEVA WANT WIV IT WAHHH WAHHH
-
Being Marxist is just like saying I'm an idiot and I don't understand economics.
I am not a marxist but thank you for proving my point, you liberal twat are incapable of seeing other points of view as a whole, you are one indoctrinated sad man.
-
I think 'trickle up economics' would work better. If the lower incomes have money they will spend. Spending creates demand...demand creates jobs.
-
I think 'trickle up economics' would work better. If the lower incomes have money they will spend. Spending creates demand...demand creates jobs.
Here is a fact. There is more of us than them therefore it stands to reason that more disposable income in the hands of the middle class and lower middle class means more products are sold thus creating demand and increased production
-
The part of America that believes in hard work and fair pay.
-
The part of America that believes in hard work and fair pay.
Too bootstrappy. Try something less mythical.
-
I luckily come a from a wealthy family, and can say I have a very good education (I am an upper class Chilean).
Taxing the shit out of the rich is fair because of distributive justice (think John Rawls and his two criteria for social development). Not only that, the ultra rich have idle wealth that generates no extra goodness neither to them (as they are unable to sepnd every penny they save up) nor to society because the taxation is low.
"What makes someone like yourself think you're entitled to someone elses wealth. What makes you believe that government knows what to do with money more than the wealthy?"
This is how I know you have never read a book on theory of right or political philosphy, its much much more than MY MMONEYYZZZ I DO WHATEVA WANT WIV IT WAHHH WAHHH
...or what you've bought into.
-
so generating revenue never helps?
where the fuck do you guys get your economics from?
Trickle down economics has failed everytime, the latest of it being bush.
Spending cuts are severly needed in the defense budget, it's so bloated it's hilarious.
-
I luckily come a from a wealthy family, and can say I have a very good education (I am an upper class Chilean).
Taxing the shit out of the rich is fair because of distributive justice (think John Rawls and his two criteria for social development). Not only that, the ultra rich have idle wealth that generates no extra goodness neither to them (as they are unable to sepnd every penny they save up) nor to society because the taxation is low.
"What makes someone like yourself think you're entitled to someone elses wealth. What makes you believe that government knows what to do with money more than the wealthy?"
This is how I know you have never read a book on theory of right or political philosphy, its much much more than MY MMONEYYZZZ I DO WHATEVA WANT WIV IT WAHHH WAHHH
spoken just like someone who hasn't worked his ass off for his wealth but rather had it handed it to him.
-
anyone for taxing the crap out of the rich is just a bitter loser in my opinion.
I realize the tax laws are favorable to corporations. The common sentiment among the business owners I know is "If you're paying taxes you haven't taken advantage of the tax laws". You really don't need to "raise" the taxes on the wealthy, you just need to close the loopholes.
-
I luckily come a from a wealthy family, and can say I have a very good education (I am an upper class Chilean).
Taxing the shit out of the rich is fair because of distributive justice (think John Rawls and his two criteria for social development). Not only that, the ultra rich have idle wealth that generates no extra goodness neither to them (as they are unable to sepnd every penny they save up) nor to society because the taxation is low.
"What makes someone like yourself think you're entitled to someone elses wealth. What makes you believe that government knows what to do with money more than the wealthy?"
This is how I know you have never read a book on theory of right or political philosphy, its much much more than MY MMONEYYZZZ I DO WHATEVA WANT WIV IT WAHHH WAHHH
I don't know the economics of that country, so this is a moot point. You've bought into socialism, it doesn't work. Europe is economically taking a shit and this president (for whatever reason) wants to follow europe or in his case Venezuela. In this country you can create wealth even if came from a poor upbringing. If someone is wealthy and has idle wealth (no such thing unless you keep it under your mattress) and even if it is "idle" it's their money that THEY earned. You came from a wealthy family, good for you but did you create your own wealth?? Chances are (if you think the way you do) you have had damn near everything handed to you because you think you're entitled. You're entitled to you're parents wealth that they created (unless they inherited that too) when they pass, but you sure as hell are not entitled to someone elses wealth.
-
so generating revenue never helps?
where the fuck do you guys get your economics from?
Trickle down economics has failed everytime, the latest of it being bush.
Spending cuts are severly needed in the defense budget, it's so bloated it's hilarious.
Read my first post. It's a short term solution. It doesn't work in the long run. Eventually it has to be paid back.
-
Depends on where this "proof" came from.
It came from an very well known economics professor at Oxford University (number 1 college in the world) in England. It did not come from an American liberal/democratic.
Plain and simple, Trickle Down Economics does not work.
-
It came from an very well known economics professor at Oxford University (number 1 college in the world) in England. It did not come from an American liberal/democratic.
Plain and simple, Trickle Down Economics does not work.
-
so generating revenue never helps?
where the fuck do you guys get your economics from?
Trickle down economics has failed everytime, the latest of it being bush.
Spending cuts are severly needed in the defense budget, it's so bloated it's hilarious.
The media has told you trickle down doesn't work. Economists say it does. Reality says it does. Read up on what is happening in London ATM. 50% of the wealthy (over a million) are getting out of dodge to avoid the new tax rates. How exactly is that going to help anyone?
-
The media has told you trickle down doesn't work. Economists say it does. Reality says it does. Read up on what is happening in London ATM. 50% of the wealthy (over a million) are getting out of dodge to avoid the new tax rates. How exactly is that going to help anyone?
you realize the irony of your post do you not?
-
The media has told you trickle down doesn't work. Economists say it does. Reality says it does. Read up on what is happening in London ATM. 50% of the wealthy (over a million) are getting out of dodge to avoid the new tax rates. How exactly is that going to help anyone?
It's called being a 'tax exile,' and it's not new, at all. You need to research your British tax history. Try around WWII.
-
by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
After President George W. Bush sent Congress an outline of his tax reform plan on February 8, some critics immediately began to attack it as a return to what they portray as the fiscally irresponsible policies of the Reagan Administration. According to these commentators, Congress should scale back--if not outright reject--President Bush's tax reform proposals because they are based on a period when the wealthy received excessive tax cuts and revenue was wasted on defense even though most Americans struggled in poverty. This is a revisionist view of recent history that ignores reality and denies the fact that President Reagan's sound policies and determination deserve much of the credit for the current economic picture. Congress should embrace President Bush's tax reform plan as a responsible return to the most successful economic policy of the 20th century.
President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2
In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.
As Exhibit 1 shows, the economic record of the last 17 years is remarkable, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the 1970s. The United States has experienced two of the longest and strongest expansions in our history back to back. They have been interrupted only by a shallow eight-month downturn in 1990-91.
Chart 1
Even with the growing surplus, however, a small but vocal faction in Congress opposes any policies that would allow taxpayers to keep more of their own money through real tax cuts and that generally would shift power from the government to the people. This attempt to rewrite history should not be surprising. Proponents of additional government spending try to make the Reagan boom appear to be a bust because they fear that Reagan's success will help President Bush build popular support for lower taxes, further deregulation, and reduced government spending. But their rhetoric is easily countered by the evidence.
history confirms the soundness of the Reagan, and now Bush, approach to economic policy. Under President Reagan, federal revenues increased even with tax cuts, federal spending did not decrease, the country experienced the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime in its history, and the rich paid more taxes proportionately than they had before the tax cuts were implemented.
HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?
Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3
As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT FEDERAL SPENDING?
Although critics continue to focus on President Reagan's budget "cuts," federal spending rose significantly during the 1980s:
Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent.6
As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990.7
Contrary to popular myth, while inflation-adjusted defense spending increased by 50 percent between 1980 and 1989, it was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since.8
Total spending on all national security programs never equaled domestic spending, even when Social Security, Medicare, and net interest are excluded from domestic totals. In addition, national security spending fell during the Administration of the senior President Bush, while domestic spending increased in both mandatory and discretionary accounts.9 (See Chart 1.)
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT ECONOMIC GROWTH?
Despite the steep recession in 1982--brought on by tight money policies that were instituted to squeeze out the historic inflation level of the late 1970s--by 1983, the Reagan policies of reducing taxes, spending, regulation, and inflation were in place. The result was unprecedented economic growth:
This economic boom lasted 92 months without a recession, from November 1982 to July 1990, the longest period of sustained growth during peacetime and the second-longest period of sustained growth in U.S. history. The growth in the economy lasted more than twice as long as the average period of expansions since World War II.10
The American economy grew by about one-third in real inflation-adjusted terms. This was the equivalent of adding the entire economy of East and West Germany or two-thirds of Japan's economy to the U.S. economy.11
From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990.12
HOW DID REAGAN'S POLICIES AFFECT THE FEDERAL TAX BURDEN?
Perhaps the greatest myth concerning the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan slashed taxes so dramatically for the rich that they no longer have paid their fair share. The flaw in this myth is that it mixes tax rates with taxes actually paid and ignores the real trend of taxation:
In 1991, after the Reagan rate cuts were well in place, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in income paid 25 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent paid 43 percent; and the bottom 50 percent paid only 5 percent.13 To suggest that this distribution is unfair because it is too easy on upper-income groups is nothing less than absurd.
The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14
Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15
These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16
Critics often add in the Social Security payroll tax and argue that the total federal tax burden shifted more to lower-income groups and away from upper-income groups; but President Reagan's changes were in the income tax, not in the Social Security payroll tax. The payroll tax was imposed by proponents of big government over the past 50 years, and it is they, not Ronald Reagan, who should be held accountable for its distributional effects.
Nevertheless, even if one counts the Social Security payroll tax, the share of total federal taxes increased between 1980 and 1989 for the following groups:
For the top 1 percent of taxpayers, from 12.9 percent in 1980 to 15.4 percent in 1989;
For the top 5 percent of taxpayers, from 27.3 percent in 1980 to 30.4 percent in 1989; and
For the top 20 percent of taxpayers, from 56.1 percent in 1980 to 58.6 percent in 1989.
On the other hand, the share of total federal taxes, if one includes the Social Security payroll tax, declined for four groups:
For the second-highest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 22.2 percent in 1980 to 20.8 percent in 1989;
For the middle 20 percent of taxpayers, from 13.2 percent in 1980 to 12.5 percent in 1989;
For the second-lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 6.4 percent in 1989; and
For the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers, from 1.6 percent in 1980 to 1.5 percent in 1989.17
CONCLUSION
No matter how advocates of big government try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that continues to this day. His investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that are largely responsible for the current federal surpluses. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending.
If Reagan's critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and to control the growth of entitlements, the budget would have been balanced five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993. Today, Members of Congress from across the political spectrum should stand on the evidence and defend the Reagan record.
To the extent that President Bush's proposals mirror those of Ronald Reagan, his plan should be a welcome strategy to lower the tax burden on Americans and to make the system more responsible. If the advocates of big government in Congress cooperate with President Bush rather than merely continuing to fund obsolete, wasteful, and redundant programs, there is no limit to the prosperity that Americans can generate.
Peter Sperry is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record
-
Exactly. Because that is the first thing big companies do is hire the common man, instead of pocketing the cash ::) ::)
-
Still lol'ing at "Carlos Marx"
-
JESUS said..."It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25)
Republican Party the party of many Christians of all denominations need to refer to their Bibles. They are hypocrites of the first order. Hell awaits them for their worship of money.
"You shall have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3).
-
The idea is that if you give the rich tax breaks their businesses will have more money and will lead to the creation of jobs. This is called "Trickle Down Economics" which has been proven NOT to work time and time again.
yes. in reality it "trickles down" into a new Mercedes in their driveway, and the guy who made 80K a year before they outsourced his job to India now makes 8 bucks an hour to wash it every Sunday.
-
yes. in reality it "trickles down" into a new Mercedes in their driveway, and the guy who made 80K a year before they outsourced his job to India now makes 8 bucks an hour to wash it every Sunday.
So what? They earned it.
-
My point is tax the rich until they don't exist... are not rich anymore, or just simply leave...does not work. It has never worked to pit the rich against the poor and it never will. Small example in simple numbers... I know it's over simplified.
Guy makes 100k.
Guy makes 10k and bitches about it.
Gov steps into takes 50k from the first guy to pay for shit for the other guy.
First guy now makes 50k.
Second guy still makes 10k but feels so much better cause he fucked over the other guy.
Second complains more cause its still not fair.
Gov takes 40k more from guy one.
Now both make 10k... nice and fair.
One problem. Now they both need services and there is no one left making 100k to take money from.
On a larger real life scale you get Greece out of this. Try to say there is no more money for the leeches and they will riot when their free shit gets cut off. If you think with your head for one second and stop the ... fuck them they are rich... mentality you would see this. It just makes you feel better because fuck them. It does less then zero good for you but you feel better.
-
I see a lot of lazy, self-entitled people in this thread that would give their left nut to be in the same place a "rich" person is. BTW, haha @ $250k being rich.
-
yes. in reality it "trickles down" into a new Mercedes in their driveway, and the guy who made 80K a year before they outsourced his job to India now makes 8 bucks an hour to wash it every Sunday.
And that Mercedes will need to be washed, maintained, etc. which in turn stimulates the economy and add jobs. I mean the salesman that sells it and the people who build that Mercedes aren't the mega-rich.
-
Exactly. Because that is the first thing big companies do is hire the common man, instead of pocketing the cash ::) ::)
I thing you mis-quoted. :-\
-
I see a lot of lazy, self-entitled people in this thread that would give their left nut to be in the same place a "rich" person is. BTW, haha @ $250k being rich.
JESUS said..."It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25)
Republican Party the party of many Christians of all denominations need to refer to their Bibles. They are hypocrites of the first order. Hell awaits them for their worship of money.
"You shall have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3).
Since you're not rich, remind your rich, Christian, Republican, hypocrite pals that are... If you are truly a Christian, you know this to be true.
-
So what? They earned it.
You are the most morally corrupt 'Christian' I've ever noted. ;D
-
JESUS said..."It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25)
Republican Party the party of many Christians of all denominations need to refer to their Bibles. They are hypocrites of the first order. Hell awaits them for their worship of money.
"You shall have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3).
Since you're not rich, remind your rich, Christian, Republican, hypocrite pals that are... If you are truly a Christian, you know this to be true.
You've been awfully preachy today, my deeply tanned friend.
-
We don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem. I wake up in the morning and take a dump. I pay taxes on the toilet paper, the magazine I read, the toilet itself, the water when I flush it. Everything you do and have is taxed. Then they tell you to pay more at the end of the year, when they already took have of your income from every paycheck.
The key to getting out of debt is to eliminate not add to. If you have debt you need to stop going out to eat, you need to stop drinking beers on friday night, you need to cut the smoking habit, you need to fix your car and not go out and buy a new one, you need to stop buying new clothes.
How many people had debt and said to themselves. Damn I need a better paying job so I can get rid of this. Then they started making more money only to watch their debt grow. Just as many people that make 50k a year are in debt as people that make 150k a year. Its the society that we live in we are taught to believe more is the answer.
The government needs to cut back, not tax more. This country is in more debt then ever, so lets increase food stamps and lets now create universal health care. LOL
-
You are the most morally corrupt 'Christian' I've ever noted. ;D
Sure, want to compare charitable donations? I for one, don't think Jesus wanted people to be poor. There's a difference between freely giving and stealing.
-
Sure, want to compare charitable donations? I for one, don't think Jesus wanted people to be poor. There's a difference between freely giving and stealing.
Charitable donations are tax deductible, as well as morally assuaging, so we'll discount that one. And pretty sure, even if there was such a person as Jesus, no one, let alone you, would know what he wanted. ;)
-
Sure, want to compare charitable donations? I for one, don't think Jesus wanted people to be poor. There's a difference between freely giving and stealing.
What part of that do you not understand? This has nothing to do with charitable donations or Jesus wanting people to be poor.
IT IS EASIER FOR A CAMEL TO GO THROUGH THE EYE OF A NEEDLE THAN FOR A RICH MAN TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
Do you understand that? It means Rich will burn in hell and rightfully so when there are so many on the earth starving. Don't twist God's words Joe. You know better than that.
-
It's not as simple as Rich vs Middle Class.
The new tax reform aims at taxing individuals who make over $200,000 at 30%.
Families that make over $250,000 at 30%.
Individuals making over $1 Millions at 35%.
Making over $250K does not qualify anyone as rich in this country, by no stretch of the imagination.
Making over a $1 Million, does not qualify anyone as rich in this country, considering how your take-home income becomes a 2/3rd's of that amount after taxes.
In my honest opinion, you can consider yourself rich when you no longer have to work for the rest of your life because (A) the money you have saved is enough to support you and your family for the rest of your lives and (B) you have money invested that can continuously bring you a return on investment by way of capital gains, which then guarantees continued growth of your wealth.
Not many Americans can claim to be that rich, hence why this tax reform is a little unfair to say the least.
"1"
-
It's not as simple as Rich vs Middle Class.
The new tax reform aims at taxing individuals who make over $200,000 at 30%.
Families that make over $250,000 at 30%.
Individuals making over $1 Millions at 35%.
Making over $250K does not qualify anyone as rich in this country, by no stretch of the imagination.
Making over a $1 Million, does not qualify anyone as rich in this country, considering how your taking home becomes a 3rd of that amount after taxes.
In my honest opinion, you can consider yourself rich when you no longer have to work for the rest of your life because (A) the money you have saved is enough to support you and your family for the rest of your lives and (B) you have money invested that can continuously bring you a return on investment by way of capital gains, which then guarantees continued growth of your wealth.
Not many Americans can claim to be that rich, hence why this tax reform is a little unfair to say the least.
"1"
I like you Sully OMR, thats why I'm going to kill you last.
-
if you can put 150,000 in the bank every year id say you ARE rich or am i wrong?
-
if you can put 150,000 in the bank every year id say you ARE rich or am i wrong?
People who put $150k/yr in the bank still have to keep saving at that rate for many years to reach financial independence, so no they are not rich but on the right track assuming their income is sustainable.
-
Charitable donations are tax deductible, as well as morally assuaging, so we'll discount that one. And pretty sure, even if there was such a person as Jesus, no one, let alone you, wouldknow what he wanted. ;)
You obviously missed the part between freely GIVING and confiscating.
-
What part of that do you not understand? This has nothing to do with charitable donations or Jesus wanting people to be poor.
IT IS EASIER FOR A CAMEL TO GO THROUGH THE EYE OF A NEEDLE THAN FOR A RICH MAN TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
Do you understand that? It means Rich will burn in hell and rightfully so when there are so many on the earth starving. Don't twist God's words Joe. You know better than that.
Taking a piece of scripture to fit your agenda isn't becoming.of you. It's not as easy as that Wiggs.
-
Raising taxes has NEVER worked in the long run, it's a short term solution. More problems in the long run. You don't raise taxes, it kills the private business sector. Again, it's a commonsense thing. raising taxes on the rich will do zero to help the economy.
myth
-
Coach, you have no idea what your liberal way of thinking has done to the world, and you have no idea of what socialism means, no, its not just COMMUNIST SCUM LOLZ
Liberalism has redunded in further wealth disparity, further oligarchism, further accumulation of stagnated wealth an overall less good of society for the good of certain few individuals which DID NOT earn their wealth by themselves, no.
Not to even mention the quality of life of the unlucky (the vast majority) who work a lifetime, literally, to earn enough to send their kids to college so that they can get a CHANCE at a DECENT life. Me living in a relatively easy life already have it quite tough work wise, the many examples I know of classmates that have gotten it worst is just scandalous.
-
Shouldn't the lower class be taxed at a higher rate to encourage them to improve their social standing?
-
All Taxation is Theft - Josiah Warren
-
It's not as simple as Rich vs Middle Class.
The new tax reform aims at taxing individuals who make over $200,000 at 30%.
Families that make over $250,000 at 30%.
Individuals making over $1 Millions at 35%.
Making over $250K does not qualify anyone as rich in this country, by no stretch of the imagination.
Making over a $1 Million, does not qualify anyone as rich in this country, considering how your take-home income becomes a 2/3rd's of that amount after taxes.
In my honest opinion, you can consider yourself rich when you no longer have to work for the rest of your life because (A) the money you have saved is enough to support you and your family for the rest of your lives and (B) you have money invested that can continuously bring you a return on investment by way of capital gains, which then guarantees continued growth of your wealth.
Not many Americans can claim to be that rich, hence why this tax reform is a little unfair to say the least.
"1"
Excellent point. Obama's definition of "rich" is bunk to say the least. I'm a physician living in Los Angeles, and I'm by no means living a life of excess in spite of qualifying for the highest tax rate. Nonetheless, Obama and the media have cultivated a culture of jealousy of the successful that I'm even beginning to see among my patients (snide remarks about my car, for example, by people who are lucky that I'm even willing to take their insurance since it reimburses so poorly). It seems that anybody who makes more than you is "rich" these days.
-
Taking a piece of scripture to fit your agenda isn't becoming.of you. It's not as easy as that Wiggs.
My agenda is seeking and exposing the TRUTH.
Joe, it is as easy as that. Humans make it not easy. It doesn't mean you have to be poor.
Please tell me why it isn't that easy.
-
Excellent point. Obama's definition of "rich" is bunk to say the least. I'm a physician living in Los Angeles, and I'm by no means living a life of excess in spite of qualifying for the highest tax rate. Nonetheless, Obama and the media have cultivated a culture of jealousy of the successful that I'm even beginning to see among my patients (snide remarks about my car, for example, by people who are lucky that I'm even willing to take their insurance since it reimburses so poorly). It seems that anybody who makes more than you is "rich" these days.
Says the guy who drives a Jaguar
;D
-
Excellent point. Obama's definition of "rich" is bunk to say the least. I'm a physician living in Los Angeles, and I'm by no means living a life of excess in spite of qualifying for the highest tax rate. Nonetheless, Obama and the media have cultivated a culture of jealousy of the successful that I'm even beginning to see among my patients (snide remarks about my car, for example, by people who are lucky that I'm even willing to take their insurance since it reimburses so poorly). It seems that anybody who makes more than you is "rich" these days.
when you have a lot of people out of work, combined with the people who don't want to work, but want all the trappings, it's a recipe for disaster. Successful people and or rich people who haven't really faced the brunt of economic slowdown will always be looked at with contempt. But, in this day and age, people feel entitled to what you have, without doing the work. This mentality was birthed by Baby Boomers.
Why do you think many rich people have unloaded their exotic/luxury cars? Too conspicuous, that's why.
-
You obviously missed the part between freely GIVING and confiscating.
As Groink said, you have a head like a tennis ball. He was too kind. I'd suggest Nerf. :-\
-
As Groink said, you have a head like a tennis ball. He was too kind. I'd suggest Nerf. :-\
this is what debating coach is like...
what's your name ?
"7"
what's your favorite color?
"7"
What's 2 plus 2?
"7"
-
Or understands economics.
Economists don't understand economics. To take a particular instance, it is reasonable to suppose that if (macro)economists had a genuine understanding of the extremely complicated and interrelated systems they studied, they might have had some inkling beforehand of the Great Recession of 2007-09, since predictive efficacy is a hallmark of science and it is through being properly scientific that we understand the world around us. Well, you're free to wade through the predictions/forecasts, but I'll save you the time and say that the percent of economists who had any idea whatsoever of the world's looming problems must be in 0.01-0.1 range.
I am not a marxist but thank you for proving my point, you liberal twat are incapable of seeing other points of view as a whole, you are one indoctrinated sad man.
Keep in mind that 'liberal' has exactly the opposite meaning in the United States.
by Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record
Mental process paraphrase: "Somebody with a PhD says something that confirms what I already believe, so I'll use it as an argument on my behalf."
Making over $250K does not qualify anyone as rich in this country, by no stretch of the imagination.
Do you really think there is an objectively correct definition of 'rich'? It seems more realistic to suppose that it is a subjective term which people will argue over ad infinitum (and which people will try to define so that it benefits their agenda, e.g., creating a lower threshold for rich persons so that one can generate more tax revenue).
-
Do you really think there is an objectively correct definition of 'rich'? It seems more realistic to suppose that it is a subjective term which people will argue over ad infinitum (and which people will try to define so that it benefits their agenda, e.g., creating a lower threshold for rich persons so that one can generate more tax revenue).
An objectively correct definition of "rich" does NOT exist.
We all know that for a simple man, having good health and the love of your fellow brothers/sisters constitutes a level of wealth highly surpassed by any monetary possession. Likewise, you will find some people who claim that so as long as they have a roof over their heads, 3-square meals and the love of their immediate family, that they are, in their own right, "rich".
That said, if we were to hypothetically correlate the ideal of being rich to monetary possessions, it is easily conceivable to see an overwhelming and everlasting amount of monetary wealth (monetary wealth that allows for you and various future generations to live solely off of your accumulated wealth and never have the need for an actual occupation/career, all the while attaining everything you could ever want and need) as a working definition of being RICH.
Again, it is all relative to how you see the world and whether or not you believe money truly has any influence over your happiness and overall well-being.
"1"
-
I would look at reallocating the existing money which is 10x the needed taxes.
Obama has not helped people who make less than 250k
name one thing he has done for them??
I could get behind obama care if it trained 10,000 new doctors and built 500 new hospitals.
it just hires 16,000 irs agents sofar
why no atomic power like france? dont need oil if have atomic
why no mass produced housing?
I dont understand the democrat way. Blindly raise taxes without managing the already large tax income and how it is spent.
-
In the UK middle class means you earn over £50,000 per year which is like 80,000 dollars. Anything under that is considered working class. I think most members of Getbig are well within the working class range and it would be dellusional to say otherwise.
-
I don't stand with any of them. They're all twats who will give you a bunch of wank about 'sound economic principles' etc in defense of their basic position which is: I want more money.
I'm tired of thinking about money. I'm tired of other people talking about money. I'm tired of money being a focus to the exclusion everything else. Money, money, money. You know what? Money's boring. The best things I've done (best morally or best/most enjoyable), I did just because I wanted to.
-
as if anything could be done to prevent the pending global worldwide economical collapse to happen...
Some things obviously have to be done, but considering it means some people -a lot of people- will have to lose everything they have but dont deserve to own / will have to die, we will all patiently wait for the point of no return to be reached before doing anything. It's always the same thing. How can you tell millions, billions of people, that they are useless assholes? You can't. Romney basically said that 50% of americans are lazy assholes, see where it got him. That was the truth, but the truth is always a problem for people who sin all day long.
-
american'ts are funny
-
.
-
Someone once said way back in the day that the US will crash when people realize they can get things from the government with their vote. First say anyone making over 250K a year rich and take proportionally more of their earned money. So a cop in NJ making 125K who is married to a pharmacist making 125k a year should spread their wealth around so the slackers can get their share of government money handouts. Let me tell you there isn't enough "rich" people in the US to tax to make a difference.
If the economy does well and that is done with deregulation and lower taxes the businesses need to hire people. The more people working the better it is for the government to raise revenue. The economy was great under Reagan. It was great under Clinton. It was good under Bush until both sides of congress went into complete democratic control including banking regulations.
I hope you kids get want you want. How about 3 years of unemployment insurance? Work for a year and take three off. How about making it a easy to get disability social security, food stamps and housing assistance. Get a check for life for a bs bad back. While we are at it how about borrowing a trillion or two more from China for student loan forgiveness. Let just make the military weaker to have money for these programs. Lets start making more employees of the government through tax payer job creation. We can take the money from the tax payer and give it a new government employees. Obama doesn't see the private sector as the job creators but the government.
Soon we are going to crash like Greece and Spain or we will survive with massive taxes from the workers. Remember we can have everything we want from government if they have enough money to spread the wealth around. After Obama fast tracks citizenship for Mexicans and internet voting there will be one party and 95% of the media will support it. Who ever has the media controls the vote of the simpletons.
-
myth
Not even close to being a myth. How do you figure?
-
He represents the middleclass ::)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210323/Obama-family-costs-taxpayers-1-4BILLION-year.html
-
Carlos Marx? Or Karl Marx? :D
Yes. You know. Carlos Marx. One of the Marx Brothers. Comedian and Economist.
-
In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. -Voltaire
-
JESUS said..."It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25)
Republican Party the party of many Christians of all denominations need to refer to their Bibles. They are hypocrites of the first order. Hell awaits them for their worship of money.
"You shall have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3).
Since you're not rich, remind your rich, Christian, Republican, hypocrite pals that are... If you are truly a Christian, you know this to be true.
who gives a shit what the people that wrote the bible say Jesus supposedly said? And if he did say it he was probably in his unemployed carpenter stage and his unemployment checks were about to run out.
-
In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. -Voltaire
Great quotes.
Feudalism and collectivism has been walking the land, and has been for a long time. The non-culture of being dependent rather than being on your two feet is a good education for the masses to give in and let equality "guide" their every step.
Don't worry if you're too weak you'll be carried and if you're too strong you'll be pushed down to fit in.
Any person who has some self worth left knows that there are grim times ahead unless your extremely sneaky in how you chose your path.
-
Watch it and fucking educate yourself commies.
-
The problem isn't that the .gov isn't taxing us enough. The problem isn't that the rich aren't "paying their share". With the exception of those at the bottom we are getting taxed out our asses. The problem is that the .gov pisses away the money, borrowing, spending, and printing money as if there was no consequence.
History shows that raising taxes stalls the economy which is absurd because what we need is growth. If you stimulate growth you will increase tax revenue even though the tax rates are lower. It's been done many times before. They are gonna sell all these tax increases as the public having to "pitch in" to fix this crisis. Once they get the money then they've got it and you aren't getting it back. The politicians are irresponsible and once again they are coming to the tax payer with a song and dance trying to get more from us. They mismanage and bankrupt everything they put their hands on. A line in the sand must be drawn. Hold these people accountable. Say no.
-
it's the whole principle of having "economies" that's at stake right now. The concept of money is problematic as more and more people found out it didnt make them happier to have tons of cash. At the same time, more and more people dont do shit and want material stuff in return. The balance will have to be restablished the hard way, as usual.
-
For Dutch standards, Obama is quite rightwing.
Romney would have been extremely rightwing, in Holland his ideas would be boycotted... ;D ;D
-
The US is a very low taxed country. Taxing does not equal a slow economy, in fact history points to the opposite.
-
Let's state some facts:
1) taxes as a percentage of GDP is at an all time low
2) 400 people in the US have the same wealth as 150 million Americans
3) the tax cuts only favour the rich
4) the economic growth of the last 30 years have gone to 1% of the population.
Consequences
a) the infrastructure of the US basically sucks (roads, bridges, railways)
b) the real disposable income of the average American workers is the same as it was 30 years ago!
c) there are millions of American who work but are still poor
d) the upward mobility in the US (" the American dream") is lower compared to the rest of the Western World
e) in general education is terrible. Sure you have the best schools and universities, but only a small amount of people can pay for such an education
Idiots
1) most Americans still think that raising taxes is bad... The same Americans pay relatively more taxes then the rich people
2) most Americans still believe in the American Dream
3) most Americans think that the welfare is generous. Lol, as if people can feed a family on 300 dollars a month and food stamps
Rich people
They are laughing all the way to the bank. Financing countless campaigns and think tanks. Goal: to avoid raising taxes
Best example. The bail out of banks. How many bankers had to pay back their bonuses. Almost None!!
-
Let's state some facts:
1) taxes as a percentage of GDP is at an all time low
2) 400 people in the US have the same wealth as 150 million Americans
3) the tax cuts only favour the rich
4) the economic growth of the last 30 years have gone to 1% of the population.
Consequences
a) the infrastructure of the US basically sucks (roads, bridges, railways)
b) the real disposable income of the average American workers is the same as it was 30 years ago!
c) there are millions of American who work but are still poor
d) the upward mobility in the US (" the American dream") is lower compared to the rest of the Western World
e) in general education is terrible. Sure you have the best schools and universities, but only a small amount of people can pay for such an education
Idiots
1) most Americans still think that raising taxes is bad... The same Americans pay relatively more taxes then the rich people
2) most Americans still believe in the American Dream
3) most Americans think that the welfare is generous. Lol, as if people can feed a family on 300 dollars a month and food stamps
Rich people
They are laughing all the way to the bank. Financing countless campaigns and think tanks. Goal: to avoid raising taxes
Best example. The bail out of banks. How many bankers had to pay back their bonuses. Almost None!!
it's not just in the US, it's the same everywhere on planet earth...the system is the same worldwide and it doesnt work, it's collapsing. The real solution is stopping economies, politics as we know them, and people creating their own medias and building small self sufficient non polluting communities all linked between them.
-
An objectively correct definition of "rich" does NOT exist.
I'm glad we agree 1, but this means that your previous statement that "making over $250K does not qualify anyone as rich in this country, by no stretch of the imagination" is a merely subjective one. It's still interesting because it reflects your opinion, but there isn't a right answer either way.
-
JESUS said..."It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:25)
Republican Party the party of many Christians of all denominations need to refer to their Bibles. They are hypocrites of the first order. Hell awaits them for their worship of money.
"You shall have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3).
Since you're not rich, remind your rich, Christian, Republican, hypocrite pals that are... If you are truly a Christian, you know this to be true.
How about some bible verses on abortion and homos. Thx
-
middle class, wtf term is that.
most ppl live from month to month.
if 2 monthly wages wouldnt come in consecutively, they wouldnt have anything to eat.
not here on getbig. Everyone here graduated Harvard at 17 years old, made their first million at 18 and had their retirement sewn up by 21 ::) ::) ::)
you must be one of them Losers we heard about on Fox news
-
it's the whole principle of having "economies" that's at stake right now. The concept of money is problematic as more and more people found out it didnt make them happier to have tons of cash. At the same time, more and more people dont do shit and want material stuff in return. The balance will have to be restablished the hard way, as usual.
.
-
have no fear for atomic energy, for none of them can stop the time.
every little thing, is gonna be alright.
:)
-
it's the whole principle of having "economies" that's at stake right now. The concept of money is problematic as more and more people found out it didnt make them happier to have tons of cash. At the same time, more and more people dont do shit and want material stuff in return. The balance will have to be restablished the hard way, as usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge
Great fucking idea bro, congrats.
-
Let's state some facts:
1) taxes as a percentage of GDP is at an all time low
2) 400 people in the US have the same wealth as 150 million Americans
3) the tax cuts only favour the rich
4) the economic growth of the last 30 years have gone to 1% of the population.
Consequences
a) the infrastructure of the US basically sucks (roads, bridges, railways)
b) the real disposable income of the average American workers is the same as it was 30 years ago!
c) there are millions of American who work but are still poor
d) the upward mobility in the US (" the American dream") is lower compared to the rest of the Western World
e) in general education is terrible. Sure you have the best schools and universities, but only a small amount of people can pay for such an education
Idiots
1) most Americans still think that raising taxes is bad... The same Americans pay relatively more taxes then the rich people
2) most Americans still believe in the American Dream
3) most Americans think that the welfare is generous. Lol, as if people can feed a family on 300 dollars a month and food stamps
Rich people
They are laughing all the way to the bank. Financing countless campaigns and think tanks. Goal: to avoid raising taxes
Best example. The bail out of banks. How many bankers had to pay back their bonuses. Almost None!!
no facts please. Raising taxes on the rich kills jobs ::)
-
Marx may have been wrong about communism but he was right about capitalism - so you all at the soup kitchens.
-
And what do the poor have in the US? Well, let's see:
- A home, thanks to subsidized housing provided by the government
- A car, and/or access to transportation
- Access to educational opportunities
- Food...obesity is an epidemic amongst ALL Americans...no one has died from starvation in the US in recent memory
- Medical Care....you get sick, you can go to a hospital and get treated.....broke or not, insured or not.
- Employment. There is ALWAYS work to be had. Unemployment is the option of choice for the lazy or the proud or the gravely ill.
Being poor is a direct consequence of inadequate education and/or vocational skills. Why care who is rich and what percentage are rich? What are exactly these roadblocks that supposedly exist that keep millions of American in squalor? Give me a valid reason as to how or why any person in America are unable to obtain all of the above? Who exactly stands in the way?
-
To the people that think we need to be taxed more, do you actually believe that the govenment manages money well? Are you happy with the return that you have gotten on that investment? How much is enough? At what point will you declare the tax rates high enough and start holding the .gov accountable for how they manage it?
The only way to encourage real growth and truly stimulate the economy is to let people work for themselves and not the government. Let them keep more of their own money. The government is filled with crooks that can't and won't solve our problems. The sooner you get that through your head the better off we will all be.
-
This country in small steps is progressing to socialist type society. The successful are made to be villains. The only rich people liberals have no problems with are athletes and entertainers.
-
And what do the poor have in the US? Well, let's see:
- A home, thanks to subsidized housing provided by the government
- A car, and/or access to transportation
- Access to educational opportunities
- Food...obesity is an epidemic amongst ALL Americans...no one has died from starvation in the US in recent memory
- Medical Care....you get sick, you can go to a hospital and get treated.....broke or not, insured or not.
- Employment. There is ALWAYS work to be had. Unemployment is the option of choice for the lazy or the proud or the gravely ill.
Being poor is a direct consequence of inadequate education and/or vocational skills. Why care who is rich and what percentage are rich? What are exactly these roadblocks that supposedly exist that keep millions of American in squalor? Give me a valid reason as to how or why any person in America are unable to obtain all of the above? Who exactly stands in the way?
" Why care who is richt and what percentage are rich"
In a perfect world that would not be of importance. However, if only the rich profit from the economic growth then something is wrong.
Access to education? I never knew that Yale was for free :)
-
" Why care who is richt and what percentage are rich"
In a perfect world that would not be of importance. However, if only the rich profit from the economic growth then something is wrong.
Access to education? I never knew that Yale was for free :)
???
-
To the people that think we need to be taxed more, do you actually believe that the govenment manages money well? Are you happy with the return that you have gotten on that investment? How much is enough? At what point will you declare the tax rates high enough and start holding the .gov accountable for how they manage it?
The only way to encourage real growth and truly stimulate the economy is to let people work for themselves and not the government. Let them keep more of their own money. The government is filled with crooks that can't and won't solve our problems. The sooner you get that through your head the better off we will all be.
The rich need to be taxed so that money can be invested back into the middle class (in the form of jobs preferably) because obviously they haven't been doing it of their own volition.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/10/pay-gap-richest-poorest/2793343/
Top 1% take biggest income slice on record
The gulf between the richest 1% of the USA and the rest of the country got to its widest level in history last year.
The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of total income in more than 100 years, according to a an analysis by economists at the University of California, Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford University.
The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%. The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service data.
One of the economists behind the research, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, is a top researcher in the topic of wealth and income inequality. He won the John Bates Clark medal last year. The Clark medal is awarded to the most promising economists under the age of 40. Past winners have includes Paul Krugman of Princeton University, Lawrence Summers and Steve Levitt, co-author of "Freakonomics."
In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000. Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of earnings rose 6.6%.
-
as if anything could be done to prevent the pending global worldwide economical collapse to happen...
Some things obviously have to be done, but considering it means some people -a lot of people- will have to lose everything they have but dont deserve to own / will have to die, we will all patiently wait for the point of no return to be reached before doing anything. It's always the same thing. How can you tell millions, billions of people, that they are useless assholes? You can't. Romney basically said that 50% of americans are lazy assholes, see where it got him. That was the truth, but the truth is always a problem for people who sin all day long.
great post
-
coach, maybe your success wasn't caused by your philosophy? maybe your philosophy was caused by your success?
i think this is the whole history of the american dream, actually
in the beginning, america was a huge, empty space ripe for development. those with ambitious attitudes often did well in these circumstances, so "the american dream" was born. well, america is pretty much packed to the gills with assholes now. you have to consider the possibility that those who still capitalize on the old dream (as you have, bravo) are now, perhaps, far more exceptional than before...
-
As long as the Republican middle class takes the bill that the rich leaves em. Taxes, housing value, stock market.etc as long as the Republican middle class is happy to pay, why change it ?
If they complain we just accuse them of beeing socialists. It worked so far.
-
No reason the ultra rich shouldn't pay 30% if the middle class pays 30%.
Business taxes were much higher during the most prosperous times (50's-60's), but there wasn't the international competition back then.
Bottom line is, spending is the problem. Wasteful and corrupt spending specifcally.
No one should have to pay 30%
-
yes, if by "economics" you mean liberal economics and adhere to the right of property doctrine of rights as proposed by the forefathers of our liberal economy.
There is a certain guy called something like Carlos Marx that unoderstood economics better than me and you and made some VERY good points, fyi.
Glad to see that after all these months you've finally recovered from that epic owning by George Whorewell!
Owned? I apologize for not putting my life on hold so I could communicate with you on an internet message board. Unfortunately I had to leave this great bastion of higher intelligence for 24 hours so I could do adult stuff like go to work.
Why is it that people from irrelevant 3rd world shitholes always feel the need to chime in with their worthless opinions on American politics, law, pop culture and the like?
Do Americans ever waste their time seeking out Chilean websites so they can register tough sounding Chilean names (Like Flaco or Sea Bass) on Chilean websites to create an outlet to vent their thoroughly uninformed and unsolicited opinions on goat milking or cocaine smuggling or floor mopping or whatever it is that you and your fellow countrymen contribute to this planet?
Of course not, so right off the bat- youre a loser with a meaningless opinion and the argument is over before it begins.
It is plainly obvious that your envy for America probably stems from a combination of unhappiness and dissatisfaction with your personal life coupled with the knowledge that your country owes its existence to the US. From Spanish colony to military dictatorship controlled by US influence into
um whatever it has become today. The 4th best South American country in synchronized swimming at the Olympics?
Your inferiority complex is understandable.
EDIT: Didn't realize this was an old post. George Whorewell owned Metabolic so bad back in February that he hasn't posted since! ;D
-
Obama represents taxes for everyone but the scumbag politicians. The new "royalty." The new "rulers."
Obama wants to raise taxes on the ultra wealthy, with medium cuts to social security and medicare.
Republicans want to close tax loopholes on the ultra wealthy, with large cuts to social security and medicare.
Obama proposed his plan and was laughed outta the room by Republicans:
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/884276/thumbs/r-MITCH-MCCONNELL-FISCAL-CLIFF-large570.jpg?4)
McConnell told the Weekly Standard that he "burst into laughter" as Geithner outlined the plan.
"GOP aides say Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner presented an offer calling for $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue over the coming decade, extending the 2 percentage point payroll tax deduction or something comparable to it and $50 billion in stimulus spending on infrastructure projects.
The White House plan calls for $960 billion over the coming decade by increasing tax rates and taxes on investment income on upper-bracket earners and $600 billion in additional taxes. Republicans view the offer as a step backward with the fiscal cliff an economy-rattling set of automatic spending cuts and tax increases looming at years' end."
-
Glad to see that after all these months you've finally recovered from that epic owning by George Whorewell!
EDIT: Didn't realize this was an old post. George Whorewell owned Metabolic so bad back in February that he hasn't posted since! ;D
haahahahahahahaha 10/10
now THAT is how you do it!
:D
-
George Whorewell is an absolute savage
-
Drop taxes for everyone.
More spending, more investment, more jobs, lower prices...
-
There is no more middle class in America, it's just the elite rich class, and poor poverty class!
-
Anybody against severe taxing of the ultra rich is either ultra rich or utterly blind
right. we need to punish them! right? amazing how the liberal media makes all the young people think like this.
-
Is there still a middleclass?
-
USA is fucked
-
we are now living in America Inc.
-
right. we need to punish them! right? amazing how the liberal media makes all the young people think like this.
Gee, bears. That's Rush Limbaugh's favorite line.
Coincidence?
-
Yes let's lower the taxes on rich because some day I will be super rich and will benefit from those tax breaks. ::)
unless you own your own business, you might just work for someone else, more than likely that person is "rich"
dont bite the hand that feeds you convict
-
USA is fucked
LOL maybe for some loser like you it is.
-
top 1% are further ahead then any time since 1917. Good work OBama lol
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/09/the-1-are-again-getting-richer-should-the-99-really-care/
-
Where Do You Stand? With the Rich or Middle Class?
your wealth, capital and salary pretty much define where you stand ?
-
Where Do You Stand? With the Rich or Middle Class?
your wealth, capital and salary pretty much define where you stand ?
pretty much. Unless you are a rich and cultured person who votes democrat. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just pointing out this scenario.
-
pretty much. Unless you are a rich and cultured person who votes democrat. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just pointing out this scenario.
being rich while pretending to not being rich is just a smart strategy of survival. What most hipsters are doing daily. It s also a nice way to subtly belittle people who are poorer; you stay with them, are in a position of power for example at work, pretend to be like them, but everyone knows you re richer. Just another way to mindfuck people. I laugh at the rich dudes of all ages dressing and acting like they re poor. One way or another they ll let you know they re richer than you one day, just to set the record straight; because we re animals pretending to be saints when in fact we re just trying our best to dominate instead of being dominated.
-
being rich while pretending to not being rich is just a smart strategy of survival. It s also a nice way to subtly belittle people who are poorer; you stay with them, are in a position of power for example at work, pretend to be like them, but everyone knows you re richer. Just another way to mindfuck people.
::)
-
::)
interesting vid. The part with the wife and mistress being ok to live with him as long as he pays for everything is alphamaleness at it's finest. Not too surprised; the Bible doesnt say to be loyal to only one wife, but to not commit adultery; ie taking the woman of another man. But as long as women want to flock to you for some reasons -richness, genes- and are ok to share you having a harem isnt really impossible. But it takes an iron first and expert skills at psychological warfare. Marriage, is only an alliance allowing two lifeforms to cooperate in order to insure their survival and shared interests.
I dont see how him dining where he likes the food instead of classy restaurants doesnt mean he will let know other men of his wealth to dominate them. Look at the man, look at the "animal", his wealth is his armor.
Poorer, dumber, slower men use other artifices as armors/weapons; showing off muscles at work, height, aggressiveness, mindgames, tattoos, big car etc... Some alphas dominate using money, wealth and psychological warfare, other who cant use what they have; muscles , leased cars, pretending to be richer than they are..
We all survive with what we have; ie our strenghts, abilities to dominate someone else or several persons. The strategies of survival we inherited and learned.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/10/pay-gap-richest-poorest/2793343/
Top 1% take biggest income slice on record
The gulf between the richest 1% of the USA and the rest of the country got to its widest level in history last year.
The top 1% of earners in the U.S. pulled in 19.3% of total household income in 2012, which is their biggest slice of total income in more than 100 years, according to a an analysis by economists at the University of California, Berkeley and the Paris School of Economics at Oxford University.
The richest Americans haven't claimed this large of a slice of total wealth since 1927, when the group claimed 18.7%. The analysis is based on data from Internal Revenue Service data.
One of the economists behind the research, Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, is a top researcher in the topic of wealth and income inequality. He won the John Bates Clark medal last year. The Clark medal is awarded to the most promising economists under the age of 40. Past winners have includes Paul Krugman of Princeton University, Lawrence Summers and Steve Levitt, co-author of "Freakonomics."
In a separate analysis, Saez found the top 1% of earnings posted 86% real income growth between 1993 and 2000. Meanwhile, the real income growth of the bottom 99% of earnings rose 6.6%.
If you're suggesting Obama has anything to do with this you're either:
a) stupid
b) uninformed
What do you suppose all this sequestration business affecting the U.S. is all about?
Neither side could compromise on a deal regarding the budget. Generally, Republicans want to tax the middle class and make huge cuts to social programs. Generally, Democrats want to tax the wealthiest 2% and make structured, small cuts to social programs.
This debate isn't about ideology, it's about whether you want your taxes cut or raised.
Personally, I'm not one of the wealthiest 2% of Americans (wealthier than the 98% combined), so I support taxing the ultra wealthy a little more than they're use to.
What do two of the wealthiest men in the world think about Obama's tax proposal?...
-
interesting vid. The part with the wife and mistress being ok to live with him as long as he pays for everything is alphamaleness at it's finest. Not too surprised; the Bible doesnt say to be loyal to only one wife, but to not commit adultery; ie taking the woman of another man. But as long as women want to flock to you for some reasons -richness, genes- and are ok to share you having a harem isnt really impossible. But it takes an iron first and expert skills at psychological warfare.
I dont see how him dining where he likes the food instead of classy restaurants doesnt mean he will let know other men of his wealth to dominate them. Look at the man, look at the "animal", his wealth is his armor.
Poorer, dumber, slower men use other artifices as armors/weapons; showing off muscles at work, height, aggressiveness, mindgames, tattoos, big car etc... Some alphas dominate using money, wealth and psychological warfare, other who cant use what they have; muscles , leased cars, pretending to be richer than they are..
Agreed, inferiority complex.
-
Agreed, inferiority complex.
Doesnt mean they wont impress the rich skinny old man in the line at the theatre or mall. It will probably work. We all have something others wish they had so... Having it all is probably the closest to perfection a man can dream; money, health, muscles, stable family with submissive wife ok with mistresses who might even be her best friends, big house, car(s) ...
we cant escape the animal reality of our condition; we can only manage to benefit from it the best we can with what we have.
-
pretty much. Unless you are a rich and cultured person who votes democrat. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just pointing out this scenario.
I don't know anyone 'rich' but all the well-to-dos I've met are total bleeding hearts.
-
the job creation lie and giving money to charity are despicable tax evasion schemes.
for fuck sake, read books from both sides of the spectrum and then conclude something.
Books? Watching Fox News isn't enough?
-
another thing, why must we always have economic growth?why is that the foundation of all?
theres been times where full employment was more important,even in the usa, not too long ago btw.
and keynes, have people read his stuff?hes massively mis-interpreted these days by many.
he had some good points, but didnt factor in the endless human greed(if thats natural or not is up to debate)
growth is based on money, money is based on value of work and competition. You cant change that order of things. Some people are smarter at making money, working or doing something else to earn it, as others, as simple as that. People live, die, and the circle repeats itself. You cant remove competition from life, or inequalities, as they are the essence of life itself, the challenge, what gives taste to life. A bitter taste for those who fail and a delicious one to those who succeed.
-
i have a really important questions for the reaganomics fans, the trickle down shananigans believers.
before reagon took office, the usa was biggest creditor worldwide, 4 years later usa was biggest debitor worldwide.
no joke, how the hell is this possible?
what you say ;D
According to this: http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm the US has been in debt since 1919.
Carter was in for $250B, which seems like chump change. Reagan was in for $1.5T over 8 years, but he would say it was a military buildup to bury the Soviets. Obama appears to be on course for $8-$10T.