|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikechell Inactive Member |
The purpose of government is to serve the people, to provide the most benefit to the most people
But you can't "Serve" more than you can afford. Sorry this is so long ... but it needs to be said. We can't TAX enough to "serve" all the slackers who won't work for a living.Using data from the Internal Revenue Service in 2009, The top 1% of earners, incomes of $343,927 or greater, represented 16.9% of all income and paid 36.7% of all federal taxes. Their average tax rate was 24.01%.The top 0.1% who had incomes of $1,432,890 or greater represented 7.8% of all income and paid 17.11% of all taxes. Their average rate was 24.3%. If we assume that a secretary’s adjusted gross income falls between $32,396 and $66,193 in 2009, the average tax rate for that income group (which represents individuals in the top 25%-50% of all earners) was 5.56%. (The entire group of earners between the top 25%-top 50% earned 20.7% of all income and paid 11.0% of all Federal income taxes.) If we take a closer look at the top 0.1% of earners, their average adjusted gross income in 2009 was $4.4 million and their average tax bill was $1.07 million. Included in this group were 137,982 tax returns.Their total tax bill was $147.6 billion. So what do the facts tell us?First, the average tax payor in the top 0.1% of all earners (the group which includes the vast majority of millionaires and billionaires) pays a tax rate over four (4) times that of an average secretary. Second, the average tax payer in the top 0.1% of all earners pays as much in taxes as 444 secretaries (the income of these top 0.1% earners is about 102 times the income of the average secretary). Third, if one raised the tax rate paid by these 137,982 tax payers to 30% (as is being proposed in the so-called Buffet rule), it would take over 43 years of collecting this additional tax revenue to just equal the Federal budget deficit for one year, 2011. (We have a huge spending problem.) evidence over faith ... observation over theory
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diomedes Member Posts: 995 From: Central Florida, USA Joined:
|
Business is the wrong model for government. Government is not there to make a profit or to benefit ceos and big corporations, and you can't fire people from being citizens. I would take it one step further: why is it that the individuals who are running and are trying to tout their 'business experience' as a positive always seem to have horrible business backgrounds? The Donald is actually a very mediocre businessman at best. His companies have bankrupted three or four times at last count. Not to mention his 'wealth' (whatever it actually is) was mostly predicated on him getting a huge inheritance from his father. And I also heard he had to borrow money from siblings to stay afloat at one point. Same can be said for Carly Fiorina. Her tenure at Hewlett-Packard was a well documented disaster. How can she possibly run on that success? Ditto for the likes of Mitt Romney; his Bain Capital skewered a whole swath of good companies in its day. And of course, let's not forget good ol' Dubya. That man was an anti-Midas when it comes to running a successful business of any sort. His only claim to fame was his name and the fact that he was governor of Texas. Which, judging by what I see from Rick Perry, appears to only require three functioning neurons and a goofy smile.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikechell Inactive Member |
RAZD wrote: The purpose of government is to serve the people, to provide the most benefit to the most people
The purpose of government is to provide an environment that allows the people to prosper, to live comfortably, to seek and find happiness. It is NOT to provide ... the most benefit to the most people ...
I agree that government isn't supposed to be "profitable" ... but it's not supposed to be bankrupt either.
Diomedes wrote: ... why is it that the individuals who are running and are trying to tout their 'business experience' as a positive always seem to have horrible business backgrounds?
I agree that the current crop of candidates aren't "the good guys." But anything will be better than the last 7 years. What I said was that something needs to change in D.C. Putting someone in there who is NOT a politician might be just the thing to get things working again. And we DO need to rein in the flood of spending that is putting us deeper and deeper into debt to OTHER COUNTRIES. No amount of Tax payers, rich or middle income, can bail us out of the hole we're in unless we quit spending ... period.evidence over faith ... observation over theory
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The purpose of government is to provide an environment that allows the people to prosper, to live comfortably, to seek and find happiness. It is NOT to provide ... the most benefit to the most people ... Perhaps RAZD is thinking of the General Welfare clause.
I agree that the current crop of candidates aren't "the good guys." But anything will be better than the last 7 years. Yeah, if only we could put things back the way they were. Well, I guess Trump could crash the economy again, but can he bring Osama Bin Laden back to life?
What I said was that something needs to change in D.C. Putting someone in there who is NOT a politician might be just the thing to get things working again. And if that doesn't work, we can elect a giraffe. That would be different too.
No amount of Tax payers, rich or middle income, can bail us out of the hole we're in ... Evidently they can. To balance the budget, you can either cut expenditures or raise revenues. Whether the latter is desirable I leave it to you to judge, but obviously it's possible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Which, judging by what I see from Rick Perry, appears to only require three functioning neurons and a goofy smile. If Rick Perry has that many functioning neurons, I think he should start using all three of them. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The top 1% of earners, incomes of $343,927 or greater, represented 16.9% of all income and paid 36.7% of all federal taxes. Their average tax rate was 24.01%. In the days of Eisenhower the top tax bracket was 90% and it was the time of the greatest prosperity in the US. Other nations have higher tax brackets AND higher social benefits and the average income of the citizens outranks the US
The top 1% of earners, incomes of $343,927 or greater, represented 16.9% of all income and paid 36.7% of all federal taxes. Their average tax rate was 24.01%. The top 0.1% who had incomes of $1,432,890 or greater represented 7.8% of all income and paid 17.11% of all taxes. Their average rate was 24.3%. Please provide sources for your numbers. Hopefully they are better vetted than your Jade Helm 15 source. Those who benefit most from the system should pay the most to keep it solvent.
If we take a closer look at the top 0.1% of earners, their average adjusted gross income in 2009 was $4.4 million and their average tax bill was $1.07 million. Included in this group were 137,982 tax returns. Their total tax bill was $147.6 billion. And should have been higher when you include all the money sequestered off-shore and not counted by loopholes. If we take a really good closer look we see that the "income" reported is a minor fraction of real income. Then there is corporate taxes and corporate "entitlements" that give back more to companies as "incentives to succeed" than they pay in taxes -- is that good business?
Third, if one raised the tax rate paid by these 137,982 tax payers to 30% (as is being proposed in the so-called Buffet rule), it would take over 43 years of collecting this additional tax revenue to just equal the Federal budget deficit for one year, 2011. (We have a huge spending problem.) Then stop spending money on wars and military. The US spends more than the top ten other countries on military expenditures. And stop giving money to big corporations. That's where the spending problem is, not with programs like Social Security that are paid for by the people outside the budget. Return the tax schedule to what it was under Eisenhower, and cut the loopholes for corporations, eliminate corporate entitlement programs, make taxes on stocks the same as other income, tax stock transactions. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
RAZD wrote: The purpose of government is to serve the people, to provide the most benefit to the most people
The purpose of government is to provide an environment that allows the people to prosper, to live comfortably, to seek and find happiness. It is NOT to provide ... the most benefit to the most people ... Do you think it should provide the most benefit to the smallest number of people? Indeed (as Dr A noted), the preamble of the Constitution (which I referenced) reads:
quote: Of the people by the people for the people, ergo government should provide the most benefit possible to the most people.
The purpose of government is to provide an environment that allows the people to prosper, to live comfortably, to seek and find happiness. ... For all to "to prosper, to live comfortably, to seek and find happiness" -- you will please note -- requires that you will need to provide the most benefit to the most people. You need to follow your thoughts to their logical conclusion. Taking the counter process -- providing the most benefit to those who need it least and restricting it to a small select elite does nothing for the general welfare but rather significantly impoverishes it. We KNOW that the trickle down myth is a failed concept, that not only is it wrong it is entirely backwards. The economy is made up of the movement of money, not by people having amounts of money in storage. The more money is in movement the better the economy. Give a poor person $100 and it is spent by the end of the week, all of it locally, but give a rich person $100 and half of it may be spent by the end of the year, maybe in the US, maybe somewhere else. We KNOW that the bank failure collapse happened because trickle-down did not happen -- for over 3 decades the people did not get the "promised raises" for decades, and instead had real wages fall, and could not afford to keep up their mortgages. IF trickle-down worked there would not have been the failure. When the failure happened it took just a couple of weeks ... because the economy trickles UP. You don't grow a large tree with small roots. The fact that GOP candidates still talk about trickle-down and tax breaks for the rich shows that they are either delusional or outright lying.
... But anything will be better than the last 7 years. ... You sound like a Fauxaholic. Do you mean the last 7 years where Obama spent a fraction of what Schrubbia spent? The 7 years where Obama brought the deficit down from the record height created by Scrubbia? In spite of dogged obstructionism at every step by the republicans? Those 7 years? I have to wonder what drugs you are on: please provide example of what Obama has done that was worse than Scrubbia.
... Putting someone in there who is NOT a politician might be just the thing to get things working again. ... But it isn't the politics that is the problem these days, it is the corruption of politics to pander to the rich and corporate interests over the interests of the people. You want someone who will stand up to that corruption, and somehow I don't see anyone connected to business doing that.
No amount of Tax payers, rich or middle income, can bail us out of the hole we're in unless we quit spending ... period. The hole we are in was caused by Schrubbia, who inherited a surplus from Clinton and then proceeded to give it away and go play war games. Any move in the direction of Scrubbia's disastrous policies will be worse than anything that has happened in the last 7 years. If you are truly concerned about the dept and the deficit then you need to look at WHO is causing WHAT effect on it -- not blame the last guy in office. Do some real research\investigation on what the sources are and what policies are responsible. Certainly don't expect the sources that gave you Jade Helm 15 information to provide you with accurate information on other matters. And be skeptical. Government is for the people, all the people ... with no prejudice and no favoritism -- and that is how you provide the most benefit to the most people. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : codeby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Just a minor point here.
If people want to discuss the principles of government, can we have a new thread on that? Let's keep this one to discussing primaries.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Diomedes writes:
Yep. I always wondered why people took Romney's debt scaremongering seriously. After all, he was running a lucrative scam where Bain Capital would acquire companies in 80's-style leveraged buyouts, load them up with the debt, and force them to hire Bain as consultants to relieve them of the debt through drastic cost-cutting measures. As you say, the percentage of companies who failed to survive this corporate-raider torture test was disturbingly high. And Bain's tactics might have been extreme (having the acquired companies pay Romney & Co. exorbitant fees and "dividends"), but their poor record meant that their shareholders didn't see any better return for investment than if they'd bought shares in a legitimate business instead of playing Romney's rigged crap game.
Ditto for the likes of Mitt Romney; his Bain Capital skewered a whole swath of good companies in its day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikechell Inactive Member |
It was asked, where I got the numbers I did ... they were directly from the Internal Revenue Service.
Do you mean the last 7 years where Obama spent a fraction of what Schrubbia spent? The 7 years where Obama brought the deficit down from the record height created by Scrubbia? In spite of dogged obstructionism at every step by the republicans? Those 7 years? You're turn ... where do you get these numbers? According to the U.S. National Debt Clock : Real TimeWe are now at 2+ times the debt we had at the beginning of NObama's dictatorship. Edited by mikechell, : No reason given.evidence over faith ... observation over theory
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Do you mean the last 7 years where Obama spent a fraction of what Schrubbia spent? The 7 years where Obama brought the deficit down from the record height created by Scrubbia? In spite of dogged obstructionism at every step by the republicans? Those 7 years? You're turn ... where do you get these numbers? According to the U.S. National Debt Clock : Real TimeWe are now at 2+ times the debt we had at the beginning of NObama's dictatorship. Debt and deficit are not the same thing. Deficit is the amount spent over what is received in income. If I owe $1,000, and I spend $100 more than I earn this month, my debt will increase, even if that $100 deficit is a lot less than last month's, when I spent $300 more than I earned. Having said that, RAZD still appears to be wrong. According to the White House's figures, the Federal government has consistently run higher deficits under Obama than Bush. The record deficit was in 2009, and it has decreased since then, so I suppose the thinking is that the 2009 deficit was the legacy of Bush, which Obama has been slowly undoing (in the same way that there was a budget surplus in 2001, but we can't really give Bush credit for this). However, the 2009 record deficit probably had something to do with the stimulus package.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikechell Inactive Member |
The Democrats see and believe the statistics they want to.
The Republicans see and believe the statistics they want to. But there are certain situations that can't be ignored. 1) The U.S.A. cannot continue to support illegal immigrants. Yeah, you can argue that we're ALL immigrants, but that doesn't change the fact that illegal immigrants are putting strains on all the programs designed to help impoverished Americans. They are here, and have not put ANY tax money into the system, but bleeding hearts want to let them suckle from that system. 2) To balance the budget, you can either cut expenditures or raise revenues.
Raising "revenues" is a great idea for a business, but the government doesn't sell anything ... it only has tax income. You can only tax the working to pay for the non-working until the non-working outnumbers the working ... then the system falls apart. At the present time, the non-working in closing in on outnumbering the working.3) Business model or not ... the government cannot spend more than it takes in, and there are not enough "rich" to make up for the spending this government does. You could steal ALL the money the "rich" possess, and it still would not cover all the outflow ... we MUST stop spending so much. 4) This world is way too volatile to cut military spending. We are already too weak. If you believe we can reduce our military, that no other Country would invade us, you are not paying attention to what's going on worldwide. evidence over faith ... observation over theory
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
mikechell opines:
illegal immigrants ...( deletia )... have not put ANY tax money into the system This is a LIE. Sorry. What they don't do is get any return on their taxes.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
They are here, and have not put ANY tax money into the system, but bleeding hearts want to let them suckle from that system. Too bad that is simply a falsehood, always has been and always will be. It's a great example though of promoting ignorance. The fact is that when an illegal immigrant buys gas, goes to the store, gets paid a salary, they do pay taxes unless they are working for a criminal. They pay sales tax, gas tax, payroll and social security and unemployment taxes, income taxes ... Funny how that old chestnut keeps getting posted just like it was true or had anything to do with reality.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikechell Inactive Member |
They pay sales tax, gas tax, payroll and social security and unemployment taxes, income taxes ...
Bull____ ...Payroll, SS, Unemployment and income all are paid to those who have a social security number ... which "undocumented workers" don't have. They get paid "under the table" and then use WIC to buy food, because bleeding hearts have made it possible for them to get WIC without a SS number.They pay sales taxes when they buy something they can't get with WIC, but those don't go towards any of the payroll taxes. Again, like I said, You'll believe what you want. It's a pointless argument, because bleeding hearts believe the government is supposed to suckle the masses. The fact that that is not so, will not change your minds. evidence over faith ... observation over theory
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024