Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
The rich get richer and the rest get 'let them eat cake'
Thursday, December 16, 2010 7:06 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Friday, December 17, 2010 3:33 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Quote: If the tax cuts become law, the next two years will be the best in living memory for many wealthy Americans to shield their income and fortunes
Friday, December 17, 2010 6:13 AM
HKCAVALIER
Friday, December 17, 2010 10:47 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Friday, December 17, 2010 10:48 AM
STORYMARK
Friday, December 17, 2010 11:03 AM
Friday, December 17, 2010 3:14 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2:Not that it needs mentioning, but the tax cut LAW was set to expire after ten years. Ergo, that LAW was a tax cut. It was to be in place no longer than the end of 2010. They have now written a new LAW giving people tax cuts for two more years. When that runs out, unless they write another LAW to give people more tax cuts, they LEGALLY will run out. Can you grasp that one, Raptor?
Saturday, December 18, 2010 3:52 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Sunday, December 19, 2010 8:07 AM
Quote:you just first RAISE taxes, and have folks pay at that rate, before you can cut them, and claim taxes were 'cut'.
Sunday, December 19, 2010 8:16 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Quote:So you maintain that Bush never cut taxes, right
Sunday, December 19, 2010 8:24 AM
Quote:...raised marginal income tax rates for Americans living abroad. (The bill also cut taxes for the wealthy and worsened long-term deficits.) ...raised the overall tax bill and marginal tax rates as well for some overseas Americans. The bill also “tripled tax rates for teenagers with college savings funds.”
Quote:When Bush signed the big corporate tax bill passed in 2004 by the Republican Congress, he approved 63 different tax increases with a single stroke of the pen. Revenue provision B 8, for example -- "Disallowance of certain partnership loss transfers with partner loss limits for transfer of interest in electing investment partnerships"
Quote:President Bush's 2004 budget proposed an increase of $5.9 billion in fees on taxpayers from just one year ago. Specifically, President Bush's 2005 budget increased prescription "drug co-pays from $7 to $15 for many veterans." In 2002, the co-pay went from $2 to $7." The Administration left a $9 billion hole in funding its own education bill. That unfunded mandate, along with "cuts in federal taxes and programs have shoved some of the tax burden down to states and municipalities" forcing them to "hike property taxes to pay for schools and other services." As one expert noted "county and city governments have been raising taxes" with "property tax collections rising more than 10%" last year alone. [Source: Christian Sci. Monitor, 2/2/04; PPI, 2003]
Sunday, December 19, 2010 8:31 AM
Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:06 AM
KANEMAN
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Not that it needs mentioning, but the tax cut LAW was set to expire after ten years. Ergo, that LAW was a tax cut. It was to be in place no longer than the end of 2010. They have now written a new LAW giving people tax cuts for two more years. When that runs out, unless they write another LAW to give people more tax cuts, they LEGALLY will run out. Can you grasp that one, Raptor? Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani, Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”, signing off
Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:12 AM
Quote:The last time anyone reformed taxes, it was Reagan, and what he wound up doing was... as usual,.. soaking the middle class by eliminating deductions which meant the most to them
Quote:Businesses get to depreciate their assets such as buildings and equipment, but people do not. Businesses get tax loopholes which people do not. If we're going to give business the same rights as real people, we should give them the same friggin' tax burden. And if they knowingly kill people, the business should be sentenced to death.
Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:20 AM
Quote:It is hilarious that those who pay nothing have no problem telling those that do to pay more...Fucking hilarious.
Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:03 AM
Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:11 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Quote:you just first RAISE taxes, and have folks pay at that rate, before you can cut them, and claim taxes were 'cut'.Stupid statement.
Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:14 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: So you maintain that Bush never cut taxes, right?
Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:16 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Quote:It is hilarious that those who pay nothing have no problem telling those that do to pay more...Fucking hilarious. I agree. Only that applies to corporations and the wealthy, who do pay less than the middle class and often pay... nothing. Yep, nothing. So, what do you say to THAT?
Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:17 AM
Quote:those who pay nothing have no problem telling those that do to pay more
Quote:No Taxes for Owners, Only Workers Bush's 'ownership society' means that someone is going to have to pay the taxes that rich people are no longer paying. And that someone is low-wage workers. Tax cuts are shifting more of the burden of taxes to middle-class and working-class households. This is important because the Bush team is counting on buying millions of votes with their tax cuts. Most people know that the biggest chunk of the tax cut goes to the rich and the super rich: about a quarter of the 2001-2003 tax cuts went to just 1 percent of taxpayers. These are people with an average income of more than a million dollars a year. But there are many people who think: who cares if they give away billions to rich people who don't need it, so long as I can get a few hundred dollars in the deal? But they are mistaken. What they don't understand is that someone is going to have to pay those taxes that rich people are no longer paying. And that someone is them. The Bush team's tax policy seems deliberately designed to shift the burden of taxes from the richest taxpayers to those who are, in their estimation, lower down on the food chain. Getting rid of the estate – that is, inheritance – tax benefited less than two percent of taxpayers; about half of them got a windfall averaging $3.4 million. Reducing capital gains taxes is another giveaway to the rich, enabling billionaires to pay a lower marginal tax rate on their income from stock sales than that what a nurse or truck driver pays on their wages. And then there is the tax cut on stock dividends: many people thought that they would get at least something from this, since they own at least some stock in their retirement accounts. But they were tricked here too: if you have a retirement account, your income from dividends will be taxed when you withdraw the money for retirement. Only those who own stocks outside of retirement accounts – overwhelmingly very rich people – got a break. The real purpose of the Bush team's tax policy was to rewrite the tax code to create, as Mr. Bush calls it, "an ownership society": one in which owners do not pay taxes, but workers do.
Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:21 AM
Sunday, December 19, 2010 10:28 AM
Quote: those who pay nothing have no problem telling those that do to pay more
Sunday, December 19, 2010 11:06 AM
Sunday, December 19, 2010 11:54 AM
Sunday, December 19, 2010 1:41 PM
Quote:The rich pay more than their fair share ( what ever the hell that's suppose to mean ). They pay the freight for most of the taxes paid in this country, and by more than they earn. The rich pay more than their fair share ( what ever the hell that's suppose to mean ). They pay the freight for most of the taxes paid in this country, and by more than they earn.
Quote:Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said. The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005. More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.
Quote:Thanks to the 15% tax rate on long term capital gains, the 400 highest earners pay a lower effective federal income tax rate than ordinary rich folks. In 2007 (the last year the IRS has published data for) the 400 derived two thirds of their average adjusted gross income of $345 million from capital gains and paid an average effective rate of just 16.6%. Taxpayers earning $1 million to $5 million, who get more of their income from salary and other “ordinary” income taxed at a top 35% rate, paid an effective tax rate of 24%.
Sunday, December 19, 2010 1:50 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Since the bottom 98% have seen their "wealth" increase by less than 3% in the last decade, while the top 2% have seen their wealth INCREASE by over 250% in that same time period, I'd say it's clear who isn't paying "their fair share".
Sunday, December 19, 2010 3:10 PM
Monday, December 20, 2010 5:27 PM
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:11 AM
Quote:You can totally ignore these facts
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:16 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: urgh. Too much reality for rappy.
Quote: The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:24 AM
Quote:57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes
Quote:the US has the 2nd highest tax rate for corporations in the industrial world
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:59 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: urgh. Too much reality for rappy. You seem to have a problem w/ your brain being missing. Quote: The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005. So ? What's that have to do w/anything ? You make it seem as if they pay NO taxes, what so ever. Fact is, the US has the 2nd highest tax rate for corporations in the industrial world. Behind Japan, if I recall correctly. These red herrings the Left loves to toss out, these lengthy diatribes and lectures on how little we are taxed are complete and total con games.
Quote: You can't TAX this nation into prosperity. That's the flaw you on the Left simply refuse to acknowledge and get through your skulls.
Quote: Taxing Warren Buffett or Bill Gates more won't give you or anyone you know 1 god damn thing more.
Quote: The REAL issue is out of control Gov't spending.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 7:42 PM
Quote:So ? What's that have to do w/anything ? You make it seem as if they pay NO taxes, what so ever. Fact is, the US has the 2nd highest tax rate for corporations in the industrial world. Behind Japan, if I recall correctly. These red herrings the Left loves to toss out, these lengthy diatribes and lectures on how little we are taxed are complete and total con games.
Quote:But of the 275 Fortune 500 companies that made a profit each year from 2001 to 2003 and for which adequate information to draw conclusions is publicly available, only a small proportion paid federal income taxes anywhere near that statutory 35 percent tax rate. The vast majority paid considerably less. In fact, in 2002 and 2003, the average effective tax rate for all of these 275 companies was less than half the statutory 35 percent rate. Over the 2001-2003 period, effective tax rates ranged from a low of -59.6 percent for Pepco Holdings to a high of 34.5 percent for CVS. Over the three-year period, the average effective rate for all 275 companies dropped by a fifth, from 21.4 percent in 2001 to 17.2 percent in 2002-2003. Eighty-two of the 275 companies, almost a third of the total, paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2001 to 2003. In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $102 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $35.6 billion in income taxes as the statutory 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they received outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury, totaling $12.6 billion. These companies' "negative tax rates" meant that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years. Twenty-eight corporations enjoyed negative federal income tax rates over the entire 2001-2003 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $44.9 billion over the three years, included, among others: Pepco Holdings (-59.6 percent tax rate), Prudential Financial (-46.2 percent), ITT Industries (-22.3 percent), Boeing (-18.8 percent), Unisys (-16.0 percent), Fluor (-9.2 percent) and CSX (-7.5 percent), the company previously headed by current Secretary of the Treasury John Snow. In 2003 alone, 46 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes. These 46 companies told their shareholders they earned U.S. pretax profits in 2003 of $42.6 billion, yet they received tax rebates totaling $5.4 billion. Almost as many companies, 42, paid no tax in 2002, reporting $43.5 billion in pretax profits, yet receiving $4.9 billion in tax rebates. From 2001 to 2003, the number of no-tax companies jumped from 33 to 46, an increase of 40 percent. In 2001, the Treasury paid corporations $40 billion in tax refunds, a third more than the 1998-2000 average. Then in 2002 and 2003, after the law was changed to expand tax subsidies and make it easier for corporations to carry back excess tax breaks to earlier years, corporate tax refunds skyrocketed to an average of $63 billion a year - more than double the 1998-2000 average. Corporations are now paying the lowest levels of taxes in the post-World War II era. In fiscal 2002 and 2003, federal corporate incomes taxes dropped to their lowest sustained level as a share of the economy since World War II. Only a single year during the early Reagan administration was lower.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 8:06 AM
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:20 AM
Quote: Several of us have made the same points repeatedly in this thread, and proven them with facts and figures. Yet the only reaction is to repeat falsehoods or run away. Why bother trying beyond the initial argument which shows them wrong?
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:37 AM
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 12:35 PM
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 12:42 PM
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 1:57 PM
FREMDFIRMA
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 3:02 PM
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 4:05 PM
Quote:You're not bringing 'facts and figures' You're only bringing the cherry picked bits you want folks to see, and ignoring the rest.
Thursday, December 23, 2010 4:08 AM
Thursday, December 23, 2010 8:52 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Well, Rappy- last call to set the record straight. Please being us those facts and figures and anything else you feel we have ignored... preferably something rooted in reality and not just a Wulfie-style slew of buzzwords. Be prepared to explain and discuss.
Friday, December 24, 2010 4:33 AM
Friday, December 24, 2010 5:52 AM
Quote:It's a moot point. You erroneously think that that the 'rich' don't pay most of the taxes in this country.
Quote:Rappy- that's not what I think. Never said it. My point, however, was that the rich (and corporations) don't even pay as much BY PERCENTAGE as the middle class. Got it now? I mean, if you're going to argue with me, at least respond to what I said, not to some misunderstanding.
Friday, December 24, 2010 9:07 AM
Friday, December 24, 2010 10:41 AM
Friday, December 24, 2010 10:49 AM
Quote:Hell no, it's not even remotely close.
Friday, December 24, 2010 11:40 AM
Friday, December 24, 2010 9:01 PM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL