|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: Nothing gringo on May 1 [Re: Phred]
#5540231 - 04/21/06 07:24 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
You have some really weird criteria as to what qualifies one to call himself "poor".
Can you state your criteria for being poor? All you seem to do is deny they exist.
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: Nothing gringo on May 1 [Re: Phred]
#5540606 - 04/21/06 10:34 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I have no idea how you come across in an interview. All I can tell you is whenever I went for an interview, I took out my earring, trimmed my beard neatly, had a fairly recent haircut, wore clean and tidy clothes appropriate for the position I was interviewing for, and took it from there. Did I get turned down for some of the positions I applied for? Sure did. But I got others. I fail to see how you could be any less attractive a candidate than I was. You have everything I had, and a degree to boot.
Incidentally you sound incredibly out of date with all of this. Back in the 70's you could walk out of one well paid job in the morning and have another well paid job by the afternoon. After 20 years of free market economics that is certainly no longer the case.
|
Rogues_Pierre
Stranger


Registered: 03/03/06
Posts: 99
|
Re: Nothing gringo on May 1 [Re: Alex213]
#5540729 - 04/21/06 11:23 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The US has the richest poor people in the world.
--------------------
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
|
That's the after effect of workers fighting for their rights and better pay for the last hundred years tho.
|
Rogues_Pierre
Stranger


Registered: 03/03/06
Posts: 99
|
Re: Nothing gringo on May 1 [Re: Alex213]
#5540824 - 04/21/06 11:53 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
Rogues_Pierre
Stranger


Registered: 03/03/06
Posts: 99
|
|
Only The Rich Pay Taxes Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes October 10, 2003
There is new data for 2001. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.

This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.
Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income. The Rich Earned Their Dough, They Didn't Inherit It (Except Ted Kennedy)
The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.
I had a conversation with a woman who identified herself as Misty on Wednesday. She claimed to be an accountant, yet she seemed unaware of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which now ensures that everyone pays some taxes. AP reports that the AMT, "designed in 1969 to ensure 155 wealthy people paid some tax," will hit "about 2.6 million of us this year and 36 million by 2010." That's because the tax isn't indexed for inflation! If your salary today would've made you mega-rich in '69, that's how you're taxed.
Misty tried the old line that all wealth is inherited. Not true. John Weicher, as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in his February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned their wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation." What's happening here is not that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer." The numbers prove it.
I have made an executive decision as the owner and ultimate editor of this website that this table and these numbers stay on this website forever - or until next year's numbers come out. In order to get these facts, you have to see them each and every day. This story, along with a link to the IRS chart, will stay somewhere on the RushLimbaugh.com homepage so everyone can see and find these numbers at any time. It's crucial that people get this, so please, share it with a friend now!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html
--------------------
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
|
Why the rich should pay more tax
For more than a century it's been generally recognized that the best taxes (admittedly this is an expression reminiscent of "the most pleasant death" or "the funniest Family Circus cartoon") are progressive-- that is, proportionate to income. Lately, however, it's become fashionable to question this. Various Republican leaders have trotted out the idea of a flat tax, meaning a fixed percentage of income tax levied on everyone. And in their hearts they may be anxious to emulate Maggie Thatcher's poll tax-- a single amount that everyone must pay.
Isn't that more fair? Shouldn't everyone pay the same amount?
In a word-- no. It's not more fair; it's appallingly unfair. Why? The rich should pay more taxes, because the rich get more from the government.
Consider defense, for example, which makes up 20% of the budget. Defending the country benefits everyone; but it benefits the rich more, because they have more to defend. It's the same principle as insurance: if you have a bigger house or a fancier car, you pay more to insure it.
Social security payments, which make up another 20% of the budget, are dependent on income-- if you've put more into the system, you get higher payments when you retire.
Investments in the nation's infrastructure-- transportation, education, research & development, energy, police subsidies, the courts, etc.-- again are more useful the more you have. The interstates and airports benefit interstate commerce and people who can travel, not ghetto dwellers. Energy is used disproportionately by the rich and by industry.
As for public education, the better public schools are the ones attended by the moderately well off. The very well off ship their offspring off to private schools; but it is their companies that benefit from a well-educated public. (If you don't think that's a benefit, go start up an engineering firm, or even a factory, in El Salvador. Or Watts.)
The FDIC and the S&L bailout obviously most benefit investors and large depositors. A neat example: a smooth operator bought a failing S&L for $350 million, then received $2 billion from the government to help resurrect it.
Beyond all this, the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 budget, or the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.
Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we? Well, Canada has no interest deduction, but has about the same rate of home ownership.)
How about social spending? Well, putting aside the merely religious consideration that the richest nation on the planet can well afford to lob a few farthings at the hungry, I'd argue that it's social spending-- the New Deal-- that's kept this country capitalistic. Tempting as it is for the rich to take all the wealth of a country, it's really not wise to leave the poor with no stake in the system, and every reason to agitate for imposing a new system of their own. Think of social spending as insurance against violent revolution-- and again, like any insurance, it's of most benefit to those with the biggest boodle.
http://www.zompist.com/richtax.htm
|
bukkake


Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 2,764
Loc: Classified
|
|
Quote:
Why do you believe sharing accomodations makes one "poor"?
That is the reason the majority of the time.
Quote:
"Rented apartments"? Now you are saying one is poor if one rents? And yes, college students often meet the definition of "poor", duh. That's because they are not working full time. The point is that college students don't stay poor.
One is not poor if one rents. You are advocating the poverty of future productive members of society. What are your thoughts on children born into poverty and the fact they are more likely to remain in poverty than those not born into poverty?
Quote:
You have some really weird criteria as to what qualifies one to call himself "poor".
Poor in the United States is an annual income of $9-10,000 dollars, a figure frighteningly low.
Quote:
Only The Rich Pay Taxes
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/nation...agewanted=print
Rush must have been on one of his downers. Those are the wealthy who even bother to file.
And people are puzzled as to why the wealthy are becoming wealthier and the poor are becoming poorer. Poor people are not falling out of the sky.
http://www.cfo.com/printable/article.cfm/2986633
And why is income redistribution to your own citizens considered socialism, but tax breaks and corporate welfare handouts considered "subsidies?"
Edited by bukkake (04/21/06 02:45 PM)
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: Nothing gringo on May 1 [Re: bukkake]
#5541301 - 04/21/06 02:51 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Newscorp Investments is Rupert Murdoch's main British holding company. Although the group's profits over the past 11 years add up to ?1.4 billion ($2.1 billion), it has paid no net British corporation tax.
RUPERT MURDOCH is an exceptional businessman in many ways - in the risks he has taken to build News Corporation, in the global reach of his empire, in the way he has changed the rules of the game for other media companies. But one of his most remarkable achievements is his tax bill. In keeping with his anti-statist philosophy, Mr Murdoch hands very little of his profits to governments.
Investigating News Corporation's tax affairs is made especially hard by accounting standards in Australia, where the company is incorporated. They are among the most lax of the developed economies. In America, too, many of the unlisted subsidiaries of Mr Murdoch's listed companies are incorporated in Delaware, where there is no obligation on them to file publicly available accounts.
In Britain, however, the laws require Mr Murdoch to publish at least a few facts. That has enabled The Economist to go through 11 years'-worth of financial results of the 101 British companies listed in the latest set of News Corporation accounts as subsidiaries of Mr Murdoch's main British holding company, Newscorp Investments, to find out how much tax they paid.
The answer is that since June 1987, although the group has made ?1.4 billion in profits, it has paid no net British corporation tax at all
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/politics/economist_murdoch.htm
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Nothing gringo on May 1 [Re: Alex213]
#5541528 - 04/21/06 04:22 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
There shouldn't be any corporate taxes at all. Profits disbursed to shareholders are then taxed as shareholder income. Less wealthy individuals would thus pay a smaller percentage in taxes than they do now. Example:
Company X has 1,000 shares out. 1 investor owns 500 shares (big boy) and is in the top tax bracket (35%) Another 2 investors own 200 shares each but one has other income that puts him in the top tax bracket (Fat Cat)while the other is an elderly retiree with no other income (10%) (Grandpa). Finally, the last 100 shares are owned by 10 people who have 10 shares each and are in the middle tax bracket (20%). (Joes)
Company X makes a pretax profit of $10,000. Thats $10 per share. We now have two scenarios for taxes paid:
No corporate income tax; Big Boy pays 35% of $5,000... $1,750 and nets... $3,250 Fat Cat pays 35% of $2,000.... $700 and nets... $1,300 Grandpa pays 10% of $2,000... $200 and nets... $1,800 Each Joe pays 20%of $100... $20 and nets... $80
Now lets see what happens when there is a 25% corporate tax. which knocks the profit down to $7,500; Big Boy pays 35% of $3,750... $1,312 and nets... $2,438 Fat Cat pays 35% of $1,500... $525 and nets... $975 Grandpa pays 10% of $1,500 ... $150 and nets... $1,350 Each Joe pays 20%of $75... $15 and nets... $60
Looks fair right? Everybody takes the same hit. But I thought we were trying to be progressive. So let's look a little closer
Big Boys shares made a profit of $5,000 total taxes $2,562 or 51% Fat Cats shares..................$2,000..............$1,125 or 56% Grandpas shares..................$2,000................$650 or 32% Joes shares........................$100................ $40 or 40%
Now look at the change in the ratios. Previously the really rich guy was paying the same rate as the Fat Cat. Now he pays less. Grandpa's tax rate is more than half of each of theirs whereas previously it was 2/7ths. Joe gets fucked too.
A little more math. I made the tax rates add up to hundred earlier just for this. The next set of tax rates add up to 180. thus the new progressive rates are:
51%/1.80 28% (35%) 56%/1.80 31% (35%) 32%/1.80 18% (10%) 40%/1.80 22% (20%)
Notice the compression. The bottom share went up, the top share went down. Corporate taxation partially negates the progressive structure of income taxes. Why are you lefty loons continuing to argue that corporations should pay more taxes when it has the exactly opposite effect that you want? People own corporations. Look at how Grandpa is getting cornholed. His tax rate almost doubled. Average shmuck pension funds are heavily invested in corporations. They in fact are the largest shareholder demographic.
--------------------
|
bukkake


Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 2,764
Loc: Classified
|
Re: Nothing gringo on May 1 [Re: zappaisgod]
#5541797 - 04/21/06 05:40 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|

What? The system already in place is for the benefit of the wealthy, and you would like to make it worse and abolish the taxation system entirely or reform it more to the benefit of the rich? Do you despise your own country's high literacy rate?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Nothing gringo on May 1 [Re: bukkake]
#5541826 - 04/21/06 05:57 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Are you dyslexic?
--------------------
|
bukkake


Registered: 05/28/05
Posts: 2,764
Loc: Classified
|
Re: Nothing gringo on May 1 [Re: zappaisgod]
#5541847 - 04/21/06 06:06 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
No, but I believe you may be. I found your post had very little to do with what Alex and I were talking about.
Dyslexic or a comedian. "There shouldn't be any corporate taxes at all."
|
|