Class Warfare Ignores How the Rich Got Rich
The rich pay more taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they do not pay, as a percentage, taxes they can afford to pay. So says Warren Buffet, the world’s third richest man. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women working in his office. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid less as a percentage of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. “How can this be fair?” he asked. “How can this be right?” Buffett continued, “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” The article’s author, Ben Stein, offered several arguments for raising taxes on the rich. But nothing was ever said by Stein about Buffett’s education, time investment, or risk. In other words, nothing was said about how Buffett got rich.
Warren Buffett, known as the Oracle of Omaha, pushed the issue of taxes to the discussion forefront by urging members of the new Congressional supercommittee on deficit reduction to stop “coddling” him and other affluent Americans and raise their taxes. There is a mechanism for paying more taxes voluntarily to the US government, but nowhere in the article did it say that Buffett availed himself of that service. Buffett called for making the tax system more fair by rolling back the “Bush tax cuts” on people who earn more than $1 million a year and on income from capital gains and dividends, primary job creators.
Liberals have driven the debt-ceiling debate into the class-warfare ditch, promising most Americans they will continue to get something for nothing. This undermines America’s entrepreneurial spirit. Obama is pushing for what he calls a “reasonable proposition” (again, no definition of reasonable) of tax increases on the rich, families with incomes of $250,000 or more. “We weren’t balancing the budget off of middle-class families and working-class families. And we weren’t letting hedge-fund managers or authors of best-selling books off the hook,” said Obama. Unsaid was that the top 10% of earners are already on the hook for 70% of total income taxes, and the bottom 50% pay next to nothing. If “fairness” is as important to liberals as they say it is, they would be seeking balance by raising taxes on the low end of the income scale.
Just Tax The Rich
What’s wrong with the rich getting richer? Larry Beinhart, at Alternet, first quotes Timothy Noah, in “The United States of Inequality,” “Income distribution in the United States [has become] more unequal than in Guyana, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and roughly on par with Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador.” Countries with wide income inequality don’t lead the world in research, technology, industry, and innovation. They’re unstable. They have large underclasses. They have high rates of crime. They have little opportunity. Countries with high levels of income inequality are third-world countries. Then Beinhart continues, “Here is how people can deal with high income inequality. The primary weapon is a progressive tax structure. As people move up the income ladder they pay a higher rate at each rung.”
Says John Stossel, “Of children who were born to the poorest fifth of Americans in 1970, more than half of them rose out of that group by the year 2000. Similarly, being born to a rich family didn’t guarantee success: 61% of the kids born to the richest fifth of Americans in 1970 were no longer in that group thirty years later. That also means that 61% of the richest fifth in 2000 came from poorer families.”
From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, “Barack Obama told the nation last Wednesday [April] that “improvements” in Medicare and hiking taxes on the wealthy would stabilize government spending and bring deficit spending to what can charitably be described as a dull roar. The Wall Street Journal does some fact checking on these claims and finds them entirely false. Even if the “rich” gets defined down to the top 10% of filers – whose average annual household income is $114,000 – the level of revenue from even a 100% tax would still not close the budget gap.”
Here is something very interesting from the Wall Street Journal. Obama’s strategy has been to pretend not to increase taxes for middle class voters while looking for ways to do it. His 2009 budget included a “climate revenues” section from the indirect carbon tax of cap and trade, and a value-added tax (VAT). Most tax deductions go mainly to the middle class. These include the deductions for state and local tax payments, mortgage interest, employer-sponsored health insurance, 401(k) contributions, and charitable donations. The irony is that even as Obama says he wants the rich to pay more, his proposals would make the tax code less progressive than it is today. Obama continues targeting the middle class for tax increases to pay for an entitlement state run amuck, while claiming he only wants to tax the rich.
From this article, we learn that class warfare in the United States is heating up. Many are saying that higher taxes on the wealthy is the solution to our problems. But is that what we really want to do? Here are some facts to consider. [subsetted by me]
- The top 1 percent of all income earners already pay 39.5 percent of all federal income taxes.
- When you take all forms of federal taxation into account, the top 1 percent of all income earners pay 28.1 percent of all federal taxes.
- The top 20 percent of all income earners in the United States pay approximately 86 percent of all federal income taxes.
- Approximately 45 percent of all U.S. households pay absolutely no income taxes at all.
- Overall, U.S. households are now receiving more income from the U.S. government than they are paying to the government in taxes.
- 59 percent of all Americans now receive a government payout of one form or another.
- The ultra-wealthy keep much of their wealth outside of the United States so that the government cannot tax it.
- The United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.
Consider, as the late, great Paul Harvey said, “Corporations don’t pay taxes. The increased costs are just passed on to consumers.”
“Tax The Rich” Is Nothing More Than Class Warfare Rhetoric
Says Ralph Alter, after making a bet with a conservative friend that Obama will not be re-elected in 2012, “He, like many Americans, fears that Obama’s class warfare strategy will pay off.” Despite liberal indoctrination, this is still the United States of America. Our nation, founded on resistance to structured class society, welcomed imigrants to America’s shores yearning to be free and independent. Almost all Americans believe that he or she can become rich here in the land of plenty. People who do get rich do not want to have the government confiscate almost all of his riches. Despite the class warfare drivel propagandized by liberals, average Joe American doesn’t begrudge the rich their riches. What they do begrudge is incompetent Democrats wasting the American Dream.
The next time you hear Obama, some Democrat, or some liberal spout off that “We should raise taxes on the rich because they can afford it, because they don’t pay their fair share,” remember that all they are doing is trying to use the rhetoric of class warfare to make their (talking) point. And if a liberal begins an argument with, “Tax the rich,” dazzle him or her with logic. Spread the word – class warfare rhetoric is just that, nothing but talk! Remember, November, 2012, cannot get here too soon.
But that’s just my opinion
@Greg:
You should go to H&R Block and do a quick check then Greg. A 30-year old making $15/hour, married filing jointly whose wife is in school will not owe any taxes, and receive, from the government, a check for $2,873. No taxes owed, and getting a refund from the government on top of that. Hmmm.
This is, of course, only income taxes we are talking about.
@Randy: Ah, but I do. I just don’t read them through the prism of right wing ideology. The Founders were firmly convinced that excessive wealth in itself, regardless of the way it’s acquired, is incompatible with a true republic. Trouble is, they also recognized that the only effective way to prevent this is by confiscation, either outright or through taxation, and for various political and personal reasons they were reluctant or unable to accept this. However, the philosophers and historians whom they read and devoutly admired weren’t so timid. Plato, Lycurgus, and Montesquieu despised commerce and felt that it should be discouraged or outlawed. Montesquieu went so far as to say that complete control of property by a people would make an effective republic impossible. Through necessity our modern republic has come to recognize the same thing. You just don’t like it, but that’s too bad for you. You’ll never overcome reality.
@rich wheeler: Don’t blame me. You lefiies and LBJ created that home based industry!
@AJ Hill:
You seriously missed the mark in your post #27. Madison was, of course, speaking about the formation of political parties being inevitable, and the necessary means of ensuring equality between them. meaning, of course, that one party not gain the upper hand on another by such a degree as to, in essence, remove all other political groups from the public discourse. I believe that you need to read that entire piece by Madison. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s50.html
From Madison himself;
Meaning, that although people have unequal ability, or desire, and that the fruits of their labor may then, therefore, be unequal, that the protection of those must be the first object of government. Madison also said, in regards to the above;
James Madison, Federalist Paper no. 10;
Here we have, in a paper designed to convince the people to vote for the Constitution, Madison expounding upon the fact that individuals, and states, with their own sovereignty, are an inherent protection against such improper and wicked ideas, like the equal division of property. That certainly doesn’t sound like someone who supports governmental power to ensure the equality of outcomes in people’s lives.
Try again, AJ.
Various Quips on the issue:
What you have to remember here is that for Barack Obama, the left/progressive/statists and socialists, the money does ‘not belong to you’ (or the wealthy). It does not belong to business – it belongs first and foremost to the federal government and they will “dish it out” as they see fit. As far as they are concerned … it’s not ‘your’ money (or the wealthy’s money)
If capitalism makes some people rich without making others poor, who will benefit when capitalism is destroyed? Better still, WHY are people trying to destroy it?
I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more. If it pisses you off, invent something better and put your name on the building.
Some suggest “tax the rich to make up the deficit”. As of the end of 2010, the total worth of all American billionaires is $1.3 Trillion. We could take ALL their worth, not just high taxes, but ALL their WORTH; and it wouldn’t dent our national debt. It wouldn’t even pay this year’s deficit! And if we did take their money to pay some of this year’s deficit, what would we we do next year?
“America’s political system used to be about the pursuit of happiness. Now More and more of us want to stop chasing it and have it delivered.”
“The government cannot love you, and any politics that works on a different assumption is destined for no good.” “Government money only pays for the “liberties” the government thinks you should have, and therefore it can determine how you exercise them. That turns liberties into privileges dispensed at the whim of the state.”
AJ Hill
What?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montesquieu/
Buffett isn’t a hypocrite? The Founding Fathers wanted income redistributed? Talk about a nonsense belief system.
Buffett could pay more to the government on his own, but he doesn’t. He wants others to pay more who can’t use the loopholes his army of accountants use. That’s a hypocrite…much like you AJ.
Hard Right says billionaires shouldn’t donate to charities and thereby help those less fortunate.
H.R. That about sums you up.I wonder how many of you agree with that? I know John Galt doesn’t.
@AJ Hill:
No, you don’t. It appears, even, that you don’t even actually read the founding father’s own words, or, at the very least, you fail to comprehend exactly what they were saying.
It amazes me that you would believe that the founding fathers, after having just fought a war for their independence from a despotic ruler and government that thought nothing of pillaging the colonies of their wealth, would then support the very ideas they just fought against. But please, by all means, continue to grace us with your insight into the founding fathers. If nothing else, it educates the other readers here as to the exact opposite of what the founders actually believed.
@rich wheeler: I knew a female LT who got pregnant every time she was supposed to deploy and by a different father each time. Three battle rosters, three babies, three different papas. I also knew two other females who purposely got pregnant to get the extra cash. You are not trying to say these things never happen are you?
@Randy: I took up Social Security, because so many critics of government activism lump it together with welfare, Medicare, and other dissimilar programs. Furthermore welfare itself is relatively small, comprising only 1% of federal outlays, while more than 12% goes to the middle class and wealthy in the form of tax credits, low interest loans, investment incentives … But, if you want to concentrate on welfare, because you think it proves something, like women having babies to make money, that’s fine. I married a welfare worker, so I’m not unfamiliar with the issue. Just to address any other stereotypes you have, more than 3/4 of welfare recipients are white, 2/3 of them are children, and 2/3 of the adults on welfare are physically impaired. If you had ever looked into the matter, welfare payments do not constitute a living stipend (They’re not enough to live on, let alone live well.) And the benefit (or increase in benefits) due to having a child are much less than the costs incurred: that is, it’s a net financial negative to have a child while on welfare.
So now, your point about “the deadbeat down the street” is what exactly?
@rich wheeler:
You don’t comprehend much of anything do you? I didn’t say he shouldn’t donate to charities. I did say we would be better off if he used that money to create businesses and jobs. Now do you think the less fortunate don’t need jobs?
Really, I’d say try thinking for once, but you are too braindead to ever do so.
Because you are too busy deliberately distorting what they said and meant in order to justify your authoritarion/socialist views. No surprise there.
I have also noticed that not one leftist has addressed what Nan pointed out above. Buffett IS trying to keep others from getting wealthy AND he’s preying on the little guy thru his insurance companies/estate sales. Just goes to show that if a “rich” guy makes the appropriate leftist noises he’ll be given a pass. Like I said, liberal hypocrites…but I repeat myself.
@Hard Right: Okay, you annoying clotpole.. I’ve refrained from insulting anyone here so far and, to be honest, just about everyone has returned the courtesy, however much they may have disagreed with my ideas – but you’ve crossed that line. Would you be kind enough to explain in what way I’m a hypocrit?\Do you even know what the word means?
Already explained it. If you aren’t smart enough to figure it out that’s your problem, you half-wit. And please don’t give us the BS you haven’t insulted anyone here. You’ve made it a point to do so with those who disagree with you. So for you to whine about it is pathetic…and further proof of your hypocrisy.
I’ve heard the drum of nationalism (which I distinguish from patriotism), like those of the author, pounded all my life. The dream of wealth and fame–which most people must reconcile as to not achieving in their final years–are generally stowed away like NBA and NFL dreams, and eventually played out on the sofa in front of the T.V. with plenty of beer. Or, some peoples’ dreams take on the character of the Kardashians and such.
But, it just so happen, regardless of the anybody thinks, the US Gini Coefficient (a measure of financial inequality) is moving constantly toward a wider inequity, along with such company as communist China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
As for a person being able to rise to the top from humble beginnings, Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez and others were on the lower rungs of the ‘class war’ at one time. And Germany, during the Nazi regime certainly had the edge of the US in scientific research and development–with jet aircraft, stealth technology, rocket powered missiles, even an atomic bomb in the making. (Although I don’t know what their Gini coefficient was.)
It seems that the heart of the philosophical divide in the US can best be exemplified by the two below statements… one by our resident and unapologetic socialist, Greg, and now chimed in with a new voice and bud, AJ Hill.
To back up AJ Hill’s own(erroneous) avow that the founders were firm believers in a Marxist style redistribution of wealth by a central government, he cites perhaps one of the most glorified propagandists and fervored independents pre Revolution – Thomas Paine… a man, I might add, that had zip, nada, nyet and zero influence in the framing of the Republic, or penning of the Constitution. Thomas Paine was definitely no libertarian in his life.
To understand Paine’s philosophy, you need only understand his past as a failed businessman, and ousted committee secretary of the first Foreign Affairs committee in short order, and eventually a journalist who had to live hand to mouth on both government welfare and the charity of his friends. Considering his failed English and Colonial financial endeavors, is it any wonder that Thomas Paine – a beneficiary of government handouts from Congress, Philadelphia and New York – was a fan of redistributing cash earned by others thru government? That’s very UN’libertarian.
However to portray this man’s philosophy as the framers’ intents, or for the founding of the Republic is a seriously desperate rewriting of history, and the most heinous interpretation of the base principle … that there should little interference in personal pursuits and lives by a central government and that, outside the few powers of authority enumerated in the original Constitution, any such regulations are best held to sovereign states.
What we have here is an impenetrable wall of differences… not only in history, but in the founding structure of this nation philosophically. AJ Hill and Greg are willing to succumb , allowing elected officials to decide what is socially “fair”, using some sense of moral superiority as their banner of policial correctness.
Yet it was bestowing exactly that type of power in the hands of politicians/leaders that we we have been warned of by the framers and founders, and reminded of it’s ultimate fate throughout the history of mankind.
Personally, I don’t care what Greg and AJ Hill believe. Part of the beauty of this nation… freedom of thought and all that. But their parroted misrepresentations of our founding… which wanted all men to equally pursue wealth and happiness with little govt interference (most especially feds)… is indicative of the revisionist history and social justice indoctrination that has been prevalent in our public schools for the past four decades. As we can see with the entitlement mentality, it has taken it toll… not only in the “gimme gimme – tha’ts not fair” whining, but on our economy with subsequent legislation that is tanking the US today.
And speaking of those entitlements… AJ Hill spends a good amount of time lecturing the guest author of this post about taxes, then piles on with a beaucoup bit of misrepresentation of his own.
AJ Hill, that $106,800 cap of which you speak… which fluctuates (always up over history) with the national wage index annually … is only a limit on taxed income for Social Security contribution.
Medicare, the other part of FICA taxes, and taxed at a different rate than SS, has *no* threshhold for income. All declared wages are subject to the portion of FICA that goes to Medicare.
I’ll also point out that the way it’s structured, it penalizes the indy businessman/self-employed. A self employed individual pays not only the employee share of these taxes, but are responsible for the larger employer share as well. Therefore, despite paying in more taxes than employees, self employed individuals will not receive any more benefits for playing the role of the “employer” as well.
In your attempt to simplify what you apprently do not understand – FICA taxes – you portrayed yourself the unwitting fool. Because, you see, all SS retirement benefits are based on what any one paid in (in theory…). Therefore the billionaire who was taxed on his first $106,800 in 2011 will not be able to receive any more in retirement benefits than the person who earned $106,800 in 2011. In other words, there is not only a cap on the taxable wages, there is a reciprocal cap on the amount of benefits one can receive because you were limited in your contributions.
And speaking of your entitlement revisionist history…
Really? Is this a way to belie the ponzi structure of both these entitlement programs, created by elected one who shared your “redistribution of wealth” base beliefs? How much did Harry and Bess Truman pay into Medicare, AJ Hill? You know, those two destitute Americans who were the first to sign up and get health benefits?
How about the SS recipients in the years after FDR shoved this unwanted program thru? How much did they pay in, AJ Hill?
I’ll answer this for you… benefits have been drawing from those paying in and not receiving benefits until the future. In other words, they were robbing Peter’s contribution in order to pay Paul’s benefits.
One more little ditty to absorb. The SSA was pended by the FDR Congress solely to provide a piggy bank for Congress to tap at will. The original legislation provided that money collected, and not paid out to beneficiaries would be invested in government backed securities… i.e. T-notes. Those could then be used by Congress for spending on other purposes than SS benefits. This is the reason we say it’s filled with IOU’s. In order for the trust fund to redeem the notes for cash Congress spent elsewhere, they will have to borrow or tax. It’s just been a low interest bank account of collateral.
These entitlement creations… by those who think like you philosophically… are the ponzi scheme monsters that have backfired and encompass 2/3rs of US debt. Until you can come to grips with that reality, it is those with your philosophy who will succeeds in taking what was a great economic and military super power, and putting it along side the Eurozone.
And you do, of course, see what their welfare mentality has wrought… you need only watch the financial news channels for a reality check. This is what you and Greg wish for the US? You’ll pry that Constitution out of my cold dead hands, guys. Government overreach of powers and nanny feel good mismanaged programs got us here. Now we have to figure a way back to the basics… or forever disappear as the nation we once were.
@MataHarley, #67:
That’s basically the way any insurance system works. There are some differences, of course: In the case of the Social Security system, participants aren’t being shaken down to extract profits; and management costs represent a smaller fraction of the total funds managed than is generally the case in private sector operations.
When older Americans are considered collectively, have their lives not been far better for nearly 75 years owing to the Social Security system?
Hasn’t it also relieved younger people of the financial burden of supporting their elders, and provided a measure of security for their own spouses and children?
It’s astonishing how many negative connotations the word “welfare” has picked up. So many that people often don’t even stop to consider what the the word is actually about. I’m surprised the right hasn’t attempted to have it stricken from the Constitution.
I want balance as much as anyone. That doesn’t mean I want a shift from one extreme to the other. From my perspective, there’s far too much whining from some of the luckiest people that have ever existed.
@Greg:
Apparently you missed the whole passel of stories about ”sandwich” families.
It was the cute name for the couple who not only care for their children but also care for one or more of their parents.
As one who took care of a MIL with cancer then years later a mom with a stroke I can say that all of the ”safety nets” in the country cannot give the care a person actually needs.
As Jesus illustrated, a hired shepherd does not care well for the sheep that are not his own.
He does not search for the lost ones or make sure they are all safe.
Only the owner of the sheep will go the extra mile.
What social security has done is throw the elderly to the wolves.
And like the hired shepherd the grown children make the excuse that that’s why we pay taxes, so mom or dad is taken care of – BY OTHERS.
Mercy… stop and think, Greg. If I pay an insurance premium with a provider of my choice, I have instant benefits from the day I start paying for that premium. For health insurance, I have medical coverage the same day if I needed it. If my home or car is damaged or vandalized, my ability to submit claims is there instantly.
What do I get for my SS contributions? Perhaps a retirement check… providing it will be there, and providing I live that long. Medicare? The same. In fact I pay a lifetime for health insurance I cannot use until I reach a certain age. And since those benefits are so paltry, you need to pay even more and get Medicare Advantage or Med B.
That ain’t an insurance policy… that’s a “reservation” for a policy that I may or may not be able to use.
In both cases, I am paying for something I cannot benefit from until – and if – I reach a certain age. This is nothing resembling insurance. The closest you can come with SS is a pension…. and that always gets a rise out of many when I suggest that SS is not only a pension, but that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to be in the pension, or insurance, business.
I’ve often cautioned you about exercising your tarot card/seer abilities when you rely on a parallel universe argument, Greg. The federal government seized an x amount of cash, invested it and averages perhaps a 3% return on that investment. Could many have done better investing it on their own? Of course. Would some have invested badly? Also of course. But it is the individual responsibility of using your earned income wisely, and not depending upon a lack luster government ponzi scheme, that’s mandated for all, that makes all the difference.
I might also add that had we handled our own investments, we can actually leave net proceeds to our heirs…. something that the money stolen by the feds for both Medicare and SS cannot do but in the rare instances of dependent/disabled children, etc. In other words, the government takes it, and they make themselves the heir if you don’t live to collect.
Personally, if the government would pay me back in full all the money they took, with that 3% interest, I’d opt out of both today. They can’t do that, of course… because since both programs are ponzi schemes, they do not have the money.
As for the “burden” of the elders, that must be an attitude personal to you. I don’t consisder my family elders a “burden”. They spent their life watching out for me. I consider it an honor to pay them back when they become vulnerable.
And I think, as you can tell with the US economy tanking because of of these two ponzi schemes, there is no measure of “security” left for the younger family.
My my, such hormonal passion, Greg. Promoting the “general welfare”… which is not a references to the financial aid or the agencies, but the state of good fortune of the Republic at large… does not infer in any way that the central government is charged with the authority of providing that aid, by creation of government agencies, and supported thru taxation of private earners.
In fact, now that you have the benefit of retrospect since the creation of both SS and Medicare, we can safely assert that neither SS or Medicare has been a “promotion” of the “general welfare” economically for this nation. In fact, it has been a great betrayal.
@MataHarley, #70:
The phrase was “financial burden”.
A working person struggling to support a spouse and two children may have all the love in the world for an aging parent, but still not have the extra money required to pay for that parent’s needs.
Social Security and Medicare funding imbalances are long-term problems that need to be addressed, but those long-term problems have nothing whatsoever to do with the current economic recession. Nor do unions. Nor does the EPA, the Department of Education, same-sex marriage, Planned Parenthood, National Public Radio, etc.
So the “financial” makes the other terms you use, “burden” and “supporting the elders” okay? Again, I repeat… had the feds not absconded the cash and allowed the burdensome “elders” to handle their own investments, many if not most would be better off. What I see in my business daily is that those elders have been more frugal in handling their money and investment choices. Their reward from that is to have no choice for their medical, and no ability to pass what they could have done thru the private world to their heirs.
Adding an aging parent to the household was something that has been done throughout history… until the feds decided they’d take their cash, and dole it out in bits at the end of their lives, like a parent giving out allowance. And they’ve been deplorable custodians of that stolen cash.
These entitlement programs have fostered a generation of those like you, who see them as a “financial burden”. And I might add that were the fed not so willing to pick your pocket… with your permission, it seems… fewer families would be struggling under the government interference that drags down both personal and business lives.
@Hard Right: # 13,
How right you are.
This business of donating half their net worth to “Charity” may buy them a seat in a heaven of their own mind and satisfy their egos, but most of it is wasted. If you do some research on the billions that B. Gates has given away, most of it has been pathetically flushed. Only a few bits of it have really made a difference, like the few dollars he threw at Africa supporting entrepreneurs. His “education” aimed funding has been a disaster.
Entrepreneurs – THAT is where investment or charity should begin. Stimulate that corner of the human spirit that the likes of Obama wants to kill.
Encourage and motivate individuals to find needs and wants which they can fill to earn money. Launch the individual to dig into his/her creativity and confidence to “build.” From that wealth, no matter how small, will sprout all other societal systems and infrastructures, including schools.
This “charity” crap makes one want to hack a fur ball. I attended enough of these self serving type charity fund raisers to know that the vast majority are monuments to the ego, and have nothing to do with improving, REALLY improving the human condition anywhere – but the egos are quite happy to receive the accolades, and enjoy the don’t-I-look-splendid-in-my-designer-dress-in-front-of-my-twenty-foot-fireplace-holding-a-glass-of-champagne pose for the magazine.
@James Raider:
A rising tide lifts all boats.
Because we believe the money would be better spent creating jobs and turning people from the “less fortunate” to the fortunate, we’re labeled as being heartless. Leftists do love attributing the worst motives to others and feeling superior to those they disagree with.
It’s that liberal tolerance (oxymoron) they are famous for.
You’re joking, right?
Below, the history of US federal spending on health care from 1902 to 2015. Note the spending increase that commenced in the years following the 1965 passage of Medicare, and the advancement of the Greatest Generation, now piling on with the aging of the boomers.
x/blue – Government transfer of funds
f/red – federal spending
s/green – state spending
i/grey – local govt spending
You’ll find the statistics and sources used at US Government Spending.
Now, here’s the charge for the same period for SS pensions spending… within 15 years of the passage of the Congressional piggy bank, known as the SSA, the costs started rising astronomically.
Now, to put into perspective just how much of US spending is related to healthcare (Medicare) and pensions (SS), this is the 2011 budget pie chart.
In case math isn’t your forte, note that health care, SS and welfare accounts for 57% of the total budget. Since most of this is borrowed money, you can start piling on about 57% of the interest (noted as 5% of the budget) on the US debt that the Treasury pays as well, bringing the costs of HHS, SS and welfare up to about 59.85% of all spending. Defense? Not only is it the only Constitutional authority of the central goverment in the bunch… 25% is more than worth it to protect and defend this nation. Is there waste that could be reformed? Sure. But as far as I’m concerned, the other two ponzi schemes need to be weened from the budget totally.
Care to try again with your misspeak?
@MataHarley, #75:
The critical question having to do with deficit and debt is By how much do Social Security and Medicare program outlays exceed dedicated program revenues? Was that difference in 2008 sufficient to precipitate recession? I think not.
Perhaps the rapid rise of defense spending is a more likely causative factor. Unlike Social Security and Medicare, there are no dedicated program revenue streams associated with defense spending. For all practical purposes, every defense dollar spent has to come out of the taxpayers’ pockets that same year, or be borrowed. Add to that the costs of off-budget military activities.
Consider also the fact that Social Security and Medicare benefit payment money is injected directly back into the U.S. economy. Much of the defense budget isn’t. Much is removed from the economy, never to return in any way, shape, or form.
Why oh why Greg would you assume that our exploding debt only originated as of 2008? Is this, again, your notion that all the ills of the world began with GWB?
It’s disengenuous to totally ignore the soaring debt and spending that nation has been accumulating first since 1935, and piled on after 1965. It’s foolhardy to ignore that 57% of the spending is Medicare/Medicaid, SS and Welfare alone. And it’s extremely math challenged to suggest the percentage of spending in Afghanistan and Iraq took us to this point.
So now, after you’ve been proved to be incorrect as to health care, pensions and welfare not adding much to the recesssion… which is part of the debt problem… you now want to use social security and medicare money is “injected directly back into the US economy” as your argument?
You ain’t gettin’ better at this, guy. Now you play the game of using borrowed money for ponzi Medicare to pay doctors/hospitals, etc. Ths is the same idiocy that Pelosi and lib/prog leaders use when they justify welfare and unemployment, saying it boosts the economy because they run out and buy groceries … or perhaps big screen TVs with their checks.
Your major flaw is that you assume the money everyone pays in actually rests in some trust, is paid out from that trust back into the public or private sector. Your problem with Medicare is that you still refuse to recognize that Medicare was spending money on Bess and Harry Truman… enrolled the day of enactment.. Not money that Harry and Bess paid in, but what was being paid in by others for supposedly their future. Since Medicare/Medicaid has always been behind the eight ball for Peter/Paul implementation, you’re injecting borrowed money.
Social Security is pure borrowed money (because the “trust fund” cash is already spent elsewhere), so it’s even more of a drag when you add the future borrowing and interest to pay back those IOUs.
Defense? Again, the only of the big three that is a Constitutional mandate, and the only one worth a hoot. Defense creates jobs here, in the same fashion you try to reserve only for healthcare (and SS, when someone spends their retirement funds… most of the time to their mortgages,utilities and base costs of living… not luxuries). Additionally, our defense technology is sold around the world to other nations (some we shouldn’t be doing….), and therefore brings in fresh external revenue.. unlike SS and healthcare.
I find it amazing that those with your philosophy place such importance upon welfare/entitlement programs, and shrug off defense as unnecessary. There are ample nations that fit your desired profile in Europe, Greg. The welfare programs are vast, and they depend upon the US for any military aid and conflict on international scale. It seems you want the US to be just like them. Well, you’d better have a good look, because they are all flushing down the toilet fiscally for exactly the same reason we are… entitlement programs and welfare. And they didn’t even have a defense budget to blame it on. Sorta puts a crimp in your argument, don’t you think?
@Greg:
Greg, I have discussed this before, but apparently, it doesn’t sink in to the liberal/progressive mind. The “general welfare” clause was not intended to extend any powers to the federal government. James Madison says as much in Federalist Paper no. 41;
What he is saying, Greg, is that in Article I, Section 8, the first line is a general phrase that is explained and qualified by the subsequent enumerations of power. “General welfare” does not constitute any power conferred upon the federal government. This is one of the most commonly misunderstood, and misapplied, phrases within the Constitution, perhaps only bested by the “commerce clause”.
@MataHarley:
And making a false assumption that the money paid in by current workers, if not paid in, would not be injected directly into the economy.
#77:
A similar flaw is assuming that it should be locked away in some box. The trust fund is essentially an accounting device for keeping track of what’s been paid in. You can’t actually pull that much money out of an economy and hide it in the mattress without that itself becoming a drag on the economy.
One might argue that an optimal balance involves money coming in being approximately equal to money going out. That way the funds are kept in constant circulation, producing little drag on economic activity. Were that mechanism not in place to counter the slowing effects of recession, the economy might stall out and fall over dead.
We’ve known that the baby boomers would put a strain on the Social Security system and the GDP for years. This was predicted. The effect has been greatly aggravated by the recession. These are not permanent conditions. Recessions end. We baby boomers are mortal.
I’m out of here. I’ve got some home carpentry work to attend to. Maybe I should hire someone and stimulate the economy?
@Greg:
And your source for this is? I cannot even attempt to reconcile that statement as truth with what I know about economics, Greg.
@johngalt, #81:
Common sense. The domestic defense industry certainly benefits from military production, but the products resulting from the expenditure of enormous quantities of irreplaceable time, energy, and resources are not the sort that tend to be economically useful. Warfare is one of humanity’s most counter-productive activities.
What would have happened if the $1-3 trillion we spend in Afghanistan and Iraq had been spent totally rebuilding our internal infrastructure? Would the nation be strong or weaker now? Safer in the world, or in more danger?
It’s a purely hypothetical question regarding our recent past, but it seems like there’s always a next time.
The poor pay much more than there fair share in federal taxes. To state otherwise displays ignorance, stupidity, or a lack of integrity.
Federal income tax only generates less than 50 percent of federal revenue combined. Where then does the other 50 plus percent of federal revenue come from?
We all know the answers, but few are willing to expose the hidden taxes that the overwhelming majority at the bottom and the middle pay to the federal government.
What are some of the hidden taxes that the masses in middle and the poor must pay?
Sin tax
Gas tax
Federal payroll tax
Utility tax
Lotto tax
Import tariffs
There are many others, but ill save the “best” and the most pernicious tax for last. This stealth tax destroys the poor and the middle class, because they bear the brunt of it.
Lest I forget, we can’t forget about the sales tax which falls on the majority of the populace which includes both the poor and the middle class. As the poor and the middle purchase goods and services on trillions of transactions the nation’s tax coffers are filled.
Also worth remembering; while federal income taxes are avoided by the poor, State and City taxes may still be collected.
So, what is this silent deadly tax you ask?
Anyone that knows how the Federal Reserve works, knows exactly what this hidden tax is, and who it affects the most.
The inflation tax!
The poor pay an unconscionable percentage of their incomes on too many flat taxes, which include sales, gas, import and inflation. If you look at the entire picture, it’s no wonder why this forces the government to refund a small amount of that money back in the form of a refund.
To argue that the federal income tax that is paid by wealthiest Americans is worse, or less fair than the inflation tax that is paid by the poor, and the middle is a piece of dung.
Commodity inflation without wage inflation is what this country has had to endure for the past decade. Inflation has destroyed the middle class and has murdered the poor.
Examine over multiple years and you will find non existent wage growth, compare that to the CPI index, price out what gas, food and other necessary commodities have done over the same time span.
when was the last time a social security recipient received a cost of living increase?
The government has borrowed money from the FED and dumped it all over the world. A large part of our debt went to the richest bankers but all US citizens have to pay for that monetary creation in the form of a diluted anemic dollar.
Simple math.
Do 99% of the US population purchase and consume more than the top 1%? If so, who bears the brunt of the inflation and consumption taxes?
There is no contest on which class of American pays a larger percentage of their income on taxes, and which class of American has been able to enrich themselves because of minuscule tax rates.
CSAINVESTOR #83 One cannot argue with that logic.Truly the poor pay the highest percentage of taxes.
@csainvestor, so we can safely say that you do not support a consumption tax in lieu of the progressive income tax system we have today for the indirect taxes?
Also, do you happen to have any stats on hand that say the “poor”, as you call it, engage in more purchases for direct taxation (as opposed to indirect) that substantially outweigh the wealthy… who have more cash to purchase items outside of the basic necessities? This, of course, would be required to put some teeth into your comment that, via their choice of consumption, they pay “more than their fair share”. Is this some magic ratio of consumption vs income that you’ve decided to lay in as a threshhold?
Personally, I’d say that I agree with you on the direct tax revenue that the government inflicts on all citizens, regardless of income.
However I’d also say that I do not agree with your final assessment that “the poor pay much more than there fair share in federal taxes”. First what crosses my mind is who the heck are you to say what is “fair share”? If one consumes, then one pays the tax, regardless of their income or financial class. If one doesn’t make enough to consume, they do not pay the direct tax.
At least there is a choice.
If the American “poor” seem to have so much left over from their income in order to consume in the amounts you suggest – suggesting it’s “more than their fair share” and thereby must dwarf the evil wealthy – then they either aren’t so “poor”… or it may be because they have more disposal income to use for consumption since they were not required to pay the indirect income tax as mandated.
And you’ll always know you’re barking up the fake plastic tree when rich wheeler comes in behind with a thumbs up comment.
One more thing for you to consider, @csainvestor… below is a chart of indirect income tax vs direct taxation from 1900 to 2015 projection. Look carefully.
I can’t help but notice that the ratio between the direct revenue and indirect income tax revenue corresponds consistently with income tax revenues since FDR/Truman days… and also seems to happen upon the scene right about the same time as the 1913 passage and ratification of the 16th Amendment.
Coincidence? I think not. And I daresay you’ll have a serious uphill battle, trying to lay that all on America’s “poor”. Apparently, those evil wealthy are also contributing far more than you’d like to admit.
Me? I think that elected officials… WH and Congress… found a way to bilk all US citizens out of more cash for them to spend. And without regard to financial class warfare.
Direct tax includes the tobacco tax.
Obama raised that.
Obama signed the Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, providing a major expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide health insurance to moderate-income families and illegal aliens.
This government handout is funded with an increased federal tobacco tax.
Increase U.S. Federal Tax on a pack of cigarettes from $0.39 to $1.01 per pack
Increase Federal tax on pipe tobacco from $1.0969 per pound to $2.83 per pound
Increase Federal tax on RYO (roll your own) tobacco from $1.0969 per pound to $24.78 per pound
Sheesh!
What does Obama have against those who roll their own????
A 2,173% Tax Increase!
One source:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=12042
The top 5% account for 25% of all spending. The bottom 80% account for 40% of all spending.
I don’t know how much the top 1% spend but it must be less than 25%.
Who spends more? Who pays more on consumption tax? The poor pay the bulk of sin and tariff taxes.
Lets not forget the worst tax of all, the inflation tax. Who pays the bulk of the inflation tax?
Compare wage growth over the past ten years to the growth of food and fuel commodity prices.
Is it any wonder that the rich own more of this country than they have since the roaring twenties and the time of robber barrons?
Dang, guy… hate to be the bearer of bad news but using your own quoted stats, if the bottom 80% account for 40% of all spending for direct taxation revenues, then the top 20% must account for 60% of all direct taxation revenues.
So who pays more? duh… gee…. lemme think. 60% of the direct tax revenues come from the top 20%…. LOL
fish in a barrel….
@Hard Right: So, you can’t cite an instance of my insulting someone here and, judging from the reckless way you throw the term around, you don’t know what “hypocrit” means, Point taken. I’m curious though. Does the kind of intellectual cowardice you display increase your status here or do the others simply not call you out? It doesn’t matter to me, I know when you’re F.O.S. and bettter still, so do you.
With 37 emails from this single thread in my Inbox, I’m not even going to attempt to respond to all of them; but your grandiose exercise in dogmatic opinion deserves special effort.
Here’s a sampling of your variousmalaprops and falsifications:
“AJ Hill’s own(erroneous) avow that the founders were firm believers in a Marxist style redistribution of wealth”
I never said anything about Marxism (perhaps because old Karl hadn’t even been born in 1796.
(And, by the way, “avow” is a verb, not a noun.)
Thomas was “a fan of redistributing cash earned by others thru government. That’s very UN’libertarian.”
Precisely my point! He was Progressive.
Medicare, the other part of FICA taxes, and taxed at a different rate than SS, has *no* threshhold for income. All declared wages are subject to the portion of FICA that goes to Medicare.
The employee’s share of the Social Security portion of the FICA tax is 6.2% and of the Medicare portion is 1.45% of wages. There’s no limit on the amount of wage subject to the Medicare tax, which makes it relatively fair, but the cap on the (much larger) portion of FICA that supports Social Security is still slanted against the poor and middle class. So your point is?
I’ll also point out that the way it’s structured, it penalizes the indy businessman/self-employed.
No! You need to read the tax code more carefully. Self employed businesspeople are not subject to FICA, but to the Self Employment Contibutions Act of 1954, which adjusts the net earnings from self employment downward by a percentage (7.65%) that exactly cancels the employer’s contribution to the tax. (Look it up.)
Therefore the billionaire who was taxed on his first $106,800 in 2011 will not be able to receive any more in retirement benefits than the person who earned $106,800 in 2011.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Social Security is not an investment program! It’s a TAX on earnings. Revenues from the tax are used to provide a basic stipend to current retirees. It’s not designed to allow YOU to recover what YOU contributed or for YOU to get more, if YOU earned more, or anything like that. Try for once to get over being so grotesquely self centered about everything.
These entitlement creations… by those who think like you philosophically… are ponzi scheme monsters … .”
Whenever right wingers feel threatened by the facts, they resort to perjoratives and ad hominems. One of your favorites is evidently to call entitlement programs “Ponzi schemes”. You’re grossly mistaken, of course. In the archetypal Ponzi scheme, money from new investors is passed directly to previous investors under the guise of a return or interest payment. Since it’s never added to principle, this is a fraud. In the Social Security System money paid in by recent enrollees goes directly into the trust fund or to pay current retirees. Since there’s no pretext of investment nor any promise of a return on investment (except, perhaps, among those befuddled by ignorance) there’s no crime. Calling these programs Ponzi schemes is at best muddle-headed and at worst a cynical lie, conflating similarity in structure with identity of function.
Your speculation notwithstanding, the elderly are not reliably supported by their families (if they have any!) and never have been. The need for a social safety net has been apparent for centuries. Libertarians may hate entitlement programs and welfare (until they reach retirement age themselves, like their heroinne, Ayn Rand) but the vast majority of the public supports them enthusiastically, as recent polls demonstrate. in a prescient essay entitled, “Agrarian Justice” Thomas Paine described a program of public support for the poor and elderly supported by inheritance taxes that is very like Social Security. In typical right wing fashion, you seek to discredit the plan by showering the man himself with ad hominems, a clear indication that you have nothing of substance to say.
Mata re # 85 Dang Mata .I’ve given more thumbs up to you than anyone at F.A. What does that mean? Keep up the good work.lol
Semper Fi Helped cook for 2/4 and families today at Pendleton.Godspeed to these OUTSTANDING young Americans
@Greg:
I will agree with this to a point, Greg. At certain times, though, when left with no other choice, warfare can be quite productive, like, say, fighting for your freedom, or defending oneself.
But this?
I believe you are mistaken about that, Greg. There are entire industries that include items that aren’t readily identifiable as “economically useful”, yet, the purchasing of those products is still a part of the economy.
And this;
This makes no sense, Greg, mainly because even if your figures are assumed to be correct, which I will admit are possible, and probable, a very large portion of that money is spent, ultimately, here in the US, with all manner of supplies in support of the troops. The one big one that is questionable is fuel. I’m not that conversant with military economics to know where the fuel for those areas come from, whether they are made here and shipped there, or made and delivered from more local sources. But, again, I’d say that most of the figures you mention goes into our economy, rather than another country’s economy.
@AJ Hill:
I would suggest that you deselect the notification box below the comment space before submitting a post. It makes for a lot less clutter in your email, particularly when a topic gets like this one is, with many comments. Just trying to be helpful.
rich wheeler, it means don’t help! LOL It might also mean that perhaps you might consider being more discerning in picking your cyber bed partners. Clearly AJ Hill lives on the brink.
Lawdy, AJ Hill…. you sure aren’t doing much for your case. Your citations are from my own comments back to you. One of the FA authors who happened to wander onto this thread and comment on your erroneous views. You respond with an indignant diatribe when I… who hasn’t addressed you or anyone else here… commented in a polite fashion, if not in disagreement.
And yes, I know “avow” is a verb. It was also used as a verb… i.e.:
Hint… “own” is not a verb and is not incorrect useage since you can say “your own”, using a 3rd person pronoun as opposed to the proper pronoun. Since you’ve now confirmed Hard Right’s original impressions that you are not only insulting, but also dumber than dirt, let’s address your responses to me, shall we?
What difference does it make that Karl hadn’t been born? Is, or is not, a “redistribution of wealth” a Marxist theory? Or would you prefer the rose is called by another name to suit your improper views of American history?
The point is while you were condescendingly “educating” people on the unfairness of the FICA taxes, you were lumping SS and Medicare into the same application of taxes. None of which is true. There is no limit on the Medicare taxes, and earnings above $106,800 are indeed taxable on the evil wealthy you so hate. If you want to educate, you might want to try to get something correct, and not generalize on what you don’t apparently know. Otherwise, expect your pomposity to be throw back into your cyber face.
Another “almost”…. first, the earnings have to not be deemed “wages” in IRS speak. Secondly, self employed still pay 15.3% of “net”… thereby still paying both the employee and employer share.. of which half… shall I repeat that?… only HALF of the “employer” portion can be tax deductable in the following year. I don’t have to look it up. I’m self employed. Try again.
Hey.. you were the one focused on how the evil wealthy were getting away with absconding with more retirement benefits vs pay in. I merely point out they are not getting away with shit. And, at this point, neither are you. I am opposed to the SS program. You, apparently, are not.
First, it’s more than laughable I’d feel “threatened” by mental midgets such as yourself, AJ Hill. That aside, it’s also hard to wrap one’s mind around it being an “ad hominem” to correctly identify entitlement programs that function off of younger generations paying the bill for older generations as a ponzi scheme. Me thinks you are way too thin skinned for your own good. Perhaps laying off the hormonal treatments may help?
For “centuries”? That’s quite interesting since we didn’t have a “safety net” in place until 1935 and the passage of the SSA. By god… how did all those elderly survive? Perhaps tossed out to the cold to the elements, like old tribal customs? LOL
You make many assumptions of who I am, and what political philosphy I hold. Fact is I’m like everyone else… a combination. But thanks for again referencing your favored philosopher/sponge, Thomas Paine. I guess this makes you of like mind with Paine, yes?
And oh, BTW, never said the Founders were libertarian. It was your claim that we’ve been “brainwashed” to think they were. Yet I don’t know a single libertarian or conservative that holds that view. Maybe you should get out more?
MataHarley, i don’t care about the middle class in that top 20%. My argument is that the poor pay more their fair share when compared to the rich, i am not including the middle class in my argument.
We all know that the poor pay much more than the rich as a percentage of income and net wealth but they are also more than their fair share in total federal tax receipts even without paying federal income tax. I know you are a smart woman, i don’t need to tell you that the inflation tax is a heavy burden on the bottom 80%. This hidden tax isn’t included in federal revenue. Without it, we wouldn’t be able to create money so we could borrow and spend it.
The top 20% includes the middle class, only the top 1% contains the rich and the bottom 80% spend more than they do. Ergo, the bottom class, as a whole- pay a massive amount in consumption taxes.
Its all too easy to say the poor don’t need to pay the sin, sugar and fuel tax, yet they do pay it. And, if they didn’t, the government would just increase all tax rates to make up for that lost revenue.
federal income tax represents 45% of all federal revenue. The other 55% is paid by all of us, and the poor do indeed pay more than their fair share.
Trust me, i pay too much in taxes and i wish i could get a tax cut, but i am just stating what is fair and honest.
The truth is , the poor have been devastated by the hidden inflation tax, the rich haven’t.
Mata PLS. be careful who you accuse me of sleeping with No thumbs up given to Mr Hill.
CSAINVESTOR has made a great follow up argument in #95.
What’s with the “middle class” or evil wealthy bit, csinvestor? You said that the “poor” pay “more than their fair share” when it comes to direct tax revenues. If your citations of the “poor” constitute the 80% of citizens who pay 40% of the direct tax revenue, this still means that 60% of the direct taxation revenues are paid by the other 20%. What’s your problem, save for a fixation on class warfare? I assure you, if this is your pro type argument, you surely aren’t going to make headway for achieving victim status.
That said, I think we all pay too much in taxes since no one here is in the top 1 or 5 percentile. If we were, who the heck would bother blogging, fer heavens sake.
I’m well aware you think “the poor have been devastated by the hidden inflation tax”. I will add that the middle class have also been devasted by the hidden inflation tax. You think this is easy on most of the nation? It is not. It doesn’t matter if your overhead is double or triple digits annually… that’s just a matter of zeros. If your income/earnings is not reflection of your debt, you’re still in a world of hurt, and adjustments need to be made. Surely you don’t think that the only people feeling the pain of this O’economy are those making $20K and below annually, do you?
But INRE the direct taxes you, yourself, chose to bring up. I will also say that, outside the necessities of life (i.e. utilities, rent/mortgage, groceries, etc), consumption is an option. That differs from the indirect income taxation imposed. Therefore most of America… regardless of double or triple digit incomes… are having to pull in their belts.
You are simply letting emotions get in the way of what is “fair” in your arguments. Neither you, nor the federal government, are the arbitrators of what is “fair”. Nor should they be.
rich, csinvestor ain’t much better. Just a nicer delivery for a bad message.
Should we make sure that Obama also proposes mandated cyber “protection” for cyber bed partners is covered by insurance, to keep you safe? :0)
Don’t misunderstand me.
My entire point is to show that the poor do indeed pay more in federal taxes than they should, and the rich pay less than they should. Someone who makes 20,000 shouldn’t have to lose most of their income to sales tax, inflation, hidden taxes and living expenses- while someone that makes 20,000,000 gets to keep most of their income.
If the rich get to keep most of their gains- we all should!
If you don’t want to tax the rich, then lower the tax rates on the poor and the middle as well. Otherwise, tax the rich so that they lose as much (percentage wise) of their incomes as the rest of the nation does.
if the poor stopped drinking, smoking, eating sugar, purchasing firearms, stopped gambling and playing the lotto, stopped using gasoline etc etc- federal revenues would plummet. Where are they gonna come knocking for that lost revenue. please tell me?
P.S.
Of course its the middle that pays the most, they pay both federal income taxes and all of the other hidden taxes, including inflation- but that is an argument for another day.
And therein lies your problem. Who are you to say what “they should”? Unless, of course, you’d freely like to admit here that there is a threshold of wealth that you find needs to be capped by government. i.e. you can only be “so wealthy”, according to your standards.
Actually, this “flat tax” notion is the way the constitution was set up. The progressive tax system was put in place later instead. I doubt you’ll find many here that are enthralled with the progressive system. All of us think the IRS tome of rules is absurd and needs reforming. I suspect where we differ is that you indicate you think there should be a “too wealthy” type trigger for additional penalties.
But when you consider a flat 10% of everyone’s earned income, does that negatively affect the “poor”, or the wealthy? There are arguments to both sides of the coin.
I think what you first need to evaluate about your own feelings is whether you feel there is a “you are too rich, so you must pay” attitude. The point of this nation’s founding is that everyone could go for the gold… be it wealth or even the Oval Office. There are no limits. Accomplishment should be rewarded, not penalized. Yet, in desperation, everyone gravitates towards the latter.
Mataharley, we can go on and on with this argument. I made my point.
The poor and the middle class pay more in taxes than the rich. Unless the rich pay more, the middle class and the poor should pay less.
I don’t want to cap wealth, as i truly love capitalism.
In closing Ill ask you:
Why should the poor and the middle pay more than the rich?
Just 400 people in America own more assets and have more net wealth than 150,000,000 Americans combined.
This disparity of wealth hasn’t existed since the time of the robber barrons and there was no income tax back then.
Inflation is one of the major reasons why the middle class has become poor and the poor are dying.
I believe, csainvestor, that you have already proven that the “poor” and the “middle class” do not pay more than the rich. In income taxes, they (those evil rich) pay the bulk of the bills. By your own citations, 60% of the direct revenues are paid by the 20% of consuming citizens. Considering that their numbers are smaller for that 60%, and the numbers of 80% of consuming Americans are considerably less, there is no validity in your charges save emotions. That simply doesn’t play.
But I will say that your last two paragraphs indicate where you are genuinely coming from. And this belies the “i don’t want to cap wealth, as I truly love capitalism” statement. When you speak of “this disparity of wealth”, you are saying there needs to be a cap on that wealth, a stealing of their earnings in order to redistribute it to others to obtain what you consider is “fair”.
If 5% spends 25% on the economy, 95% spends the other 75%.
That means the government collects all types of taxes on 75% of that spent money.
That also means that inflation and a devalued dollar has increased the prices on that 75% of goods and services that were purchased by the middle and low class citizens.
Is 75% larger than 25%?
That 75% was spent by the middle and the poor.
Also, the top 5% isn’t rich, only the top 1% is. I don’t know how much that 1% spend in the US, but it is less than 25%. Therefore the middle and poor spend more than, and are taxed on more than 75% of all spending that occurs on a yearly basis.
Ill make this real easy. The poor and the middle class account for at least 75% of all consumer spending. Its probably higher than 75%, somewhere in the 80’s if i had to guess.
The bulk of all federal revenues doesn’t come from the federal income tax, it comes from multiple sources that include consumer spending. The top 1% paid 25% of all income taxes. Who paid the other 75%? The middle class!
The middle class and the poor pay for at least 60% of all federal tax revenue. These number do not include an inflation tax.
Who spends more? and who is taxed more? the poor and the middle spend at least 3x more than than the rich, that means they pay more than 3x the taxes on spending than the rich do. A large portion of the middle class ALSO pays income tax as well. The middle class and the poor do pay a larger percentage of the tax in this country. This cannot be argued.
One last time.
The poor and the middle paid for at least 60% of all federal revenues. That number skyrockets when you include inflation.
The top 1% own 40% of all wealth in this country, and they only paid 23% of all federal revenues.
BTW:
If you have a job and you are poor you may not pay federal income tax, but you do pay federal payroll taxes.
Anyway, I’m done. Ill let you have the last word.
?????
A “poor” person who doesn’t “pay federal income tax” but does “pay federal payroll taxes”….
????????
Must be one of those “poor” people who own a business and pay payroll taxes for their employees…. LOL Okay, now I’m done with you. I’ll have a more cogent debate with my 7 year old granddaughter on finances.
?????
Pardon me, but the feds collect “all types of taxes” on 100% of that spent money…. whether it’s spent by the top 1%, the top 5% or the other 96% of consumers. This, of course, makes your second paragraph moot. Inflation has no class warfare. It affects all income brackets.
ouch…. you’re really all over the place. Might as well be trying to catch butterflies on a beautiful spring day with you here.
Let’s try to simplify this, yes? You’re all up in arms about those evil wealthy. It doesn’t matter to you that 20% of all American consumers…. their income status unknown specifically… account for 60% of direct revenues. We’ll assume that the 20% who are spending that much aren’t what you would call “the poor”.
On the other hand, you attempt to portray the other 80%, who’s consumption generates 40% as poor.
Shall we get a handle on all these evil wealth earners and average wages as of April 2010?
Now frankly, I don’t know why you are bouncing from top 20% of consumers/spenders (direct tax) to the “the top 5% aren’t wealthy” bit. But if you want to equate the top 20% of spenders that contribute that 60% of direct revenue, you’re talking about those that are making between $67K and $100K, and up, with these categories. You keep insisting on breaking this down to all the Donald Trumps and Nancy Pelosi’s of the world, but that just ain’t how it goes.
There’s no way you can spin this to validate your point. It simply comes down to this… 20% of American consumers contribute 60% of the direct taxes, per your own citation. This is also in line with the evil wealthy also paying the bulk of income taxes…. in 2008, the top 10% of earners paid 70% of the nation’s income tax bills (indirect taxes). I assure you, we’ve gone downhill since 2008 in federal revenues, so this is a happy number.
Throw out all the numbers you want, girl, but you are seriously confused. You continue to disprove your own statements over and over.