The government is hurting business!

[itsbigmoni 1]

Also, i've provided links that show taxe rate is lower now than most of the past 80 years, you just say, no you're wrong without showing me anything. I've shown you actual rates and the tax bill for the average family.

 

Look, i could be wrong. If you find a link that shows rates are higher than before then i'll admit i was wrong. Its just that whenever i reaad anything about tax rates, its always how tax rates are at some of the lowest rates. Find something that says we aren't at lows, or even that taxes are middle of the pack, thats fine. I'll admit i was wrong. But i'm gonna need more than you saying so.

[itsbigmoni 1]

It's not pretty damn low. You do realize the reason it was so high in the 40's and 50's was to pay for the huge deficits we ran up in WWII, don't you? There's no way in hell we're going to come anywhere near approaching those levels of tax burden. And, of course, we didn't have half the country not paying income taxes back then either. Why don't we just make it so everyone is paying their share and see how much tax revenue we get? See, I'm about fairness. You're about raping the Rich.

 

How does ww2 explain we have the 6th lowest rate out of the past 80 years? Yes, i know we wont ever approach 90 or even 60%. Thats not the point. THe point is, in the past 80 years, the top bracket is paying the 6th lowest amount.

 

Where have i said i want to rape the rich? Where have i said they should pay higher taxes?

 

Even if everyone paid a flat rate of 20%, the top 1% would be paying much much more than the bottom 50%. Even now, its possible the rich pay less of a % on their money than the average american. My source is warren buffett who challenged anyone in the forbes 400 richest to show they pay more in taxes than his secretary. I said its possible, not fact btw. I tend to believe buffett over you tho.

[Strike 4,108]

How does ww2 explain we have the 6th lowest rate out of the past 80 years? Yes, i know we wont ever approach 90 or even 60%. Thats not the point. THe point is, in the past 80 years, the top bracket is paying the 6th lowest amount.

 

Where have i said i want to rape the rich? Where have i said they should pay higher taxes?

 

Even if everyone paid a flat rate of 20%, the top 1% would be paying much much more than the bottom 50%. Even now, its possible the rich pay less of a % on their money than the average american. My source is warren buffett who challenged anyone in the forbes 400 richest to show they pay more in taxes than his secretary. I said its possible, not fact btw. I tend to believe buffett over you tho.

 

WWII doesn't explain anything about NOW. It explains the rates THEN. Are you really this dumb? I know you get that and are just trying to be cute, but come on. Don't make me waste my time responding to such idiocy. As far as raping the rich, You said

 

But suggesting the rich pay too much is crazy.

 

Sure sounds like you'd be ok with them paying more. And if not, where is it going to come from? And yeah, at 20% the rich would still be paying more. But at least everyone would be paying the same amount relative to their income, and the bottom 45% of our society wouldn't be paying ZERO or LESS than zero.

[itsbigmoni 1]

WWII doesn't explain anything about NOW. It explains the rates THEN. Are you really this dumb? I know you get that and are just trying to be cute, but come on. Don't make me waste my time responding to such idiocy. As far as raping the rich, You said

 

 

 

Sure sounds like you'd be ok with them paying more. And if not, where is it going to come from? And yeah, at 20% the rich would still be paying more. But at least everyone would be paying the same amount relative to their income, and the bottom 45% of our society wouldn't be paying ZERO or LESS than zero.

 

Are you dodging the issue on purpose? How many years does ww2 explain? 20, 30? Lets exclude 30 years. Tax rates would still be 6th out of 50.

 

If we taxed the the 10 richest americans 20%, they would pay 54 billion. Thats just the top 10. According to this site, revenue dropped 138 billion or 34%. So tax revenue that year was approx. 405 billion. Under everyone pays 20%, the top 10 richest men would pay 13%. Granted, if everyone payed 20%, there would theoretically be more money since half the country would alo be putting in. Lets make it 500 billion. Thats still 10% with just the top 10. If you added all of the top 1%, i'm sure it would approach 30%.

 

Also, i've stated a few times, there's a good probability the richest pay less in effective tax rate than the average person.

 

And lastly, you keep saying i'm wrong about low tax rates. I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong. I know you'd be happy to do so. I'd feel dumb, you would be right, and i would have to admit it. But if all you have is your word, i'm not going to believe it.

[itsbigmoni 1]

WWII doesn't explain anything about NOW. It explains the rates THEN. Are you really this dumb? I know you get that and are just trying to be cute, but come on. Don't make me waste my time responding to such idiocy.

 

I want to expand on this a bit. I said, tax rates for the highest bracket are the 6th lowest in the past 80 years. That would suggest, relatively, taxes are pretty low for the highest bracket. You said, it was because of ww2. I don't get what that proves. I made a statement saying taxes are low. You said i was wrong. I proved they were the 6th lowest in the past 80 years. You throw out ww2.

 

If you want to make a stand alone argument 35% is too high, then say that. I'm being relative to past tax rates. You can not say taxes are high relative to past rates. You wold be 100% wrong. I never suggested ww2 rates had anything to do with todays rates. I was providing context for the statement, tax rates are at historic lows.

 

It sounds like you are saying, tax rates aren't low currently. I just don't get how you can say that unless you think taxes have been too high for the past 80 years.

[Strike 4,108]

I want to expand on this a bit. I said, tax rates for the highest bracket are the 6th lowest in the past 80 years. That would suggest, relatively, taxes are pretty low for the highest bracket. You said, it was because of ww2. I don't get what that proves. I made a statement saying taxes are low. You said i was wrong. I proved they were the 6th lowest in the past 80 years. You throw out ww2.

 

If you want to make a stand alone argument 35% is too high, then say that. I'm being relative to past tax rates. You can not say taxes are high relative to past rates. You wold be 100% wrong. I never suggested ww2 rates had anything to do with todays rates. I was providing context for the statement, tax rates are at historic lows.

 

It sounds like you are saying, tax rates aren't low currently. I just don't get how you can say that unless you think taxes have been too high for the past 80 years.

 

I've never said taxes are too high, or that they're high relative to past rates. As I've said before, if you're not capable of nuanced discussion there's no point in us talking.

[bushy 0]

The fact that almost 50% of people pay no federal income tax is absurd. I'm not blaming the rich for all of our problems, but I am blaming the failed economic theory that corporate tax cuts plus deregulation = prosperity. Since Reagan it's only ever resulted in a shrinking middle class, deficit spending and corporate abuse.

 

When is the last time the corporate income tax was cut? You realize the U.S. has the 2nd highest corporate income tax in the world, right? The one country higher, Japan. How's their economy been doing the last 20 years?

[bushy 0]

 

Seems to me we ought to be raising the tax rates for the poor and middle class if you want to counter one of the main reasons for the state of taxes that you're bitching about. But you'd rather just raise the taxes on the rich. Wealth redistribution. Gee, isn't that what I just said?

 

This will be the only way out of our current morass. Unfortunately, it will take a president and Congress that care more about our future than their reelection. We don't have that. If we taxed the top 1% at a 100% rate, we'd still be deep in debt. There's simply not enough 'rich' folks. We will have to tax those lower 50% of earners some amount...5%? 10%? Something.

[itsbigmoni 1]

I've never said taxes are too high, or that they're high relative to past rates. As I've said before, if you're not capable of nuanced discussion there's no point in us talking.

 

Lol ok. I've said it before and i'll say it again. You're a smart guy, but not nearly as smart as you think. If you didn't act so superior when you're clearly not, you'd be a great person to go back and forth with. But, you think you're so much smarter than everyone and when you're clearly wrong, you run away.

 

I'm still willing to admit i was wrong when i said taxes are at some of the lowest rates in history. You said i was wrong about that. You haven't provided a single shred of evidence. You keep calling me an idiot yet you fail to prove otherwise. If taxes aren't at historic lows, show me. I'll admit i was wrong. Thats the difference between us. When you say dumb sh1t you bob and weave the topic. You may have not said taxes are too high. I'm not gonna go back through this thread to see if you did. But you did say i was wrong about taxes being low. So basically, you're wrong, yet you're going to continue to believe taxes aren't low, no matter the facts.

[itsbigmoni 1]

This will be the only way out of our current morass. Unfortunately, it will take a president and Congress that care more about our future than their reelection. We don't have that. If we taxed the top 1% at a 100% rate, we'd still be deep in debt. There's simply not enough 'rich' folks. We will have to tax those lower 50% of earners some amount...5%? 10%? Something.

 

If we taxed the lower 50% of income earners, it'd be peanuts. Not saying we shouldn't, but taxing the first 20k an additional 5% would amount to sh1t and wouldn't help the deficit. The number one thing we should do is cut spending. The number one area is defense spending. Its retarded we spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense. Its retarded when Robert Gates is saying programs are redundant/unnecessary yet congress still pushes sh1t through.

[Strike 4,108]

Lol ok. I've said it before and i'll say it again. You're a smart guy, but not nearly as smart as you think. If you didn't act so superior when you're clearly not, you'd be a great person to go back and forth with. But, you think you're so much smarter than everyone and when you're clearly wrong, you run away.

 

I'm still willing to admit i was wrong when i said taxes are at some of the lowest rates in history. You said i was wrong about that. You haven't provided a single shred of evidence. You keep calling me an idiot yet you fail to prove otherwise. If taxes aren't at historic lows, show me. I'll admit i was wrong. Thats the difference between us. When you say dumb sh1t you bob and weave the topic. You may have not said taxes are too high. I'm not gonna go back through this thread to see if you did. But you did say i was wrong about taxes being low. So basically, you're wrong, yet you're going to continue to believe taxes aren't low, no matter the facts.

 

You said they were at historic lows. They're not. Simple as that. You can simply google "income tax rate history" and look at the tax tables over our history if you really need "evidence." Do I need to prove that 2+2=4 to you too?

[Strike 4,108]

If we taxed the lower 50% of income earners, it'd be peanuts. Not saying we shouldn't, but taxing the first 20k an additional 5% would amount to sh1t and wouldn't help the deficit. The number one thing we should do is cut spending. The number one area is defense spending. Its retarded we spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense. Its retarded when Robert Gates is saying programs are redundant/unnecessary yet congress still pushes sh1t through.

 

WTF do you mean by "additional" 5%? Are you referring to people who make 20k or the first 20k of everyone? And, either way, can you provide the actual numbers that you refer to as "amounting to ######", or are you just making stuff up again?

[bushy 0]

If we taxed the lower 50% of income earners, it'd be peanuts. Not saying we shouldn't, but taxing the first 20k an additional 5% would amount to sh1t and wouldn't help the deficit.

 

This is wrong. If we let the current top rate go from 35% back to 39% (the rate under Clinton), the government is estimated to take in $70B more dollars over 10 years ($7B per year). There are roughly 130,000,000 tax returns filed a year. If we assume the median income of the bottom 50% is about $25,000 per year and that the distribution is symmetric, we can estimate the amount of revenue produced by a tax on them. If the government imposes a 5% effective rate on all the folks paying nothing right now (the lower 50%), the government would stand to make .05 x $25,000 x 65,000,000 = $81.25B per year, or $812.5B over 10 years. By a multiple of over 11, you raise more money taxing those who pay nothing right now. I have a feeling that sometime soon, we'll be taxing both groups more because it would be politically infeasible to raise taxes just on the lower 50% (so they'll raise them on everybody).

[IMMensaMind 460]

No sh1t. The best part is when people who argue that we need tax cuts for the rich also complain about extensions in unemployment benefits. The media has done a terrific job of convincing the middle class that the poor are the big problem, while the rich keep focking them in the @ss.

 

1) Example of media attempting to convince the middle class that the poor are "the big problem", please.

 

2) Example of rich focking the middle class in the @ss, please.

 

[IMMensaMind 460]

Profitability is great. It is the core to successful American business in particular, and successful Americans in general. However, the issue is now and has always been whether or not to tax high earners and protect workers or let high earners keep as much as possible and "get out of business' way," on the assumption that it will create a "rising tide that lifts all boats."

 

There has always been a contingent of people who have advanced the idea that we will have maximum success at all levels with minimal interference in business, ie, regulate them as little as possible (if at all) and tax them as little as possible (if at all). This is of course historically silly, but now that we are seeing the stupid vividly in the present, I had hoped that some of those people would come around to the idea that regulation and stronger labor protections are an important ingredient in the mix. Unfortunately, stupid is highly contagious in this country and many people are determined to cling to failed policy ideas, even to their own detriment.

 

 

Nice Dem talking points.

 

How about examples of what you're talking about? We have incredible regulation in this country, and it has done squat to help, and plenty to hurt (witness Freddie and Fannie alone for evidence of that).

[IMMensaMind 460]

And I had hoped to one day own my very own flying unicorn.

 

We are in total agreement but that argument has been lost. What we're seeing today is an acceleration of Reagan's failed economic policies. Massive corporate tax cuts plus deregulation has always led to deficit spending and further class stratification,

 

Baloney. Corporate taxs and regulations has nothing whatsoever to do with deficit spending; deficit spending has only politicians as its impetus. Class stratification is also bullsh!t - there will always be classes, and there will always be those who look to pit one class against another for political gain (read: Democrats - who always attempt to get everyone to hate "the rich". It's worked quite well on you.

 

 

but the media has played the middle class like a fiddle. A lot of people spend time b1tching about welfare recipients or UC benefits while Wall Street F's them in the A. And if you dare complain about it or suggest that maybeat a time when unemployment is 10% and we're running huge deficits we shouldn't be cutting taxes on millionaires, well that's "class warfare."

 

Raising taxes has never resulted in prosperity for anyone; you're a full blown ignoramus.

 

We are focked. Not that the situation is too dire to fix, but people are sheep and we've been brainwashed by our corporate overlords.

 

You've been brainwashed, that's a certainty. This economy got thrown into chaos by the same people you think are needed to fix the economy. That's asinine - but you refuse to put the blame where it needs to be placed. This economy suffered a massive economic bubble caused by Government meddling in real estate.

[IMMensaMind 460]

"Stealing" money from the wealthy - that's hysterical. Your hero the Great Decider and his successor have stolen TRILLIONS from the middle class and given it to the rich. But instead of being outraged you grab your ankles and beg to get focked up the arse even harder.

 

You sir are the definition of a "useful idiot."

 

You're a focking moron. How exactly have "the rich" been given trillions by the middle class? Prove your asinine assertion, you focking lobotomy patient.

[IMMensaMind 460]

If we taxed the lower 50% of income earners, it'd be peanuts. Not saying we shouldn't, but taxing the first 20k an additional 5% would amount to sh1t and wouldn't help the deficit. The number one thing we should do is cut spending. The number one area is defense spending. Its retarded we spend more than the rest of the world combined on defense. Its retarded when Robert Gates is saying programs are redundant/unnecessary yet congress still pushes sh1t through.

 

I'm on a retard hunt, and I've got plenty of ammo. You continue to make one retarded statement after another: the lower 50% of income earners possess the majority of the money, you buffoon. Why? Because they massively OUTNUMBER the upper 50% of income earners! Taxing the first 20K an additional 5% would be HUGE money - but it isn't even just about that!

 

If you morons would just open your eyes, you'd see that the bottom 50% of income earners keep paying LESS AND LESS of the burden - nearly NONE now. 67% of all tax returns claimed an income of less than 50,000 AGI - that means that they paid none, or nearly no Federal taxes.

 

Does that correlate with things getting worse? YES, it FOCKING DOES! That's because you idiots are so convinced that we're not taxing upper income ENOUGH that you're too stupid to realize that taxing upper income MORE actually HURTS THE REST OF THE POPULATION THE MOST.

 

But you'll NEVER pull your heads out of your a$$es and have your eyes cleared of the sh!t you've been fed.

[Strike 4,108]

It'sbigstupid getting PWNED in this thread. Oh wait. What's new?

 

[IMMensaMind 460]

AGI range returns % ###### % % above ex/ret

total 138,394,754 1.99

Under $5,000 14,308,963 10.34% 10.34% 89.66% 0.95

$5,000 – $10,000 11,786,747 8.52% 18.86% 81.14% 1.25

$10,000 – $15,000 11,711,680 8.46% 27.32% 72.68% 1.67

$15,000 – $20,000 10,937,694 7.90% 35.22% 64.78% 1.80

$20,000 – $25,000 9,912,261 7.16% 42.38% 57.62% 1.92

$25,000 – $30,000 8,749,761 6.32% 48.71% 51.29% 1.95

$30,000 – $35,000 7,554,418 5.46% 54.17% 45.83% 1.99

$35,000 – $40,000 6,597,407 4.77% 58.93% 41.07% 2.00

$40,000 -$45,000 5,677,163 4.10% 63.03% 36.97% 2.09

$45,000 – $50,000 5,010,030 3.62% 66.65% 33.35% 2.15

$50,000 – $55,000 4,644,439 3.36% 70.01% 29.99% 2.27

$55,000 – $60,000 4,092,692 2.96% 72.97% 27.03% 2.31

$60,000 – $75,000 10,117,786 7.31% 80.28% 19.72% 2.45

$75,000 – $100,000 11,140,408 8.05% 88.33% 11.67% 2.69

$100,000 – $200,000 12,088,423 8.73% 97.06% 2.94% 2.83

$200,000 – $500,000 3,121,485 2.26% 99.32% 0.68% 2.89

$500,000 – $1,000,000 589,306 0.43% 99.74% 0.26% 2.93

$1,000,000 – $1,500,000 150,431 0.11% 99.85% 0.15% 2.88

$1,500,000 – $2,000,000 64,007 0.05% 99.90% 0.10% 2.84

$2,000,000 – $5,000,000 98,724 0.07% 99.97% 0.03% 2.79

$5,000,000 – $10,000,000 24,975 0.02% 99.99% 0.01% 2.83

$10,000,000+ 15,956 0.01% 100.00% 0.00% 2.82

 

Legend

Column 1 – Range of adjusted gross income

Column 2 – Number of returns that fall into this range

Column 3 – Percentage of total returns

Column 4 – Cumulative percentage (percent of return that have this AGI or lower)

Column 5 – Percentage of returns that are above this range

Column 6 – Number of exemptions per return

 

Columns 1 and 2 are taken directly from the IRS spreadsheet. The other columns are calculations based on information from the IRS spreadsheet.

 

This topic is over. Those who think that "the rich" aren't taxed enough are full blown retards.

[PackYourNut 47]

One of the main reasons we're in this mess is overspending. Our economy is moving to a new paradigm where consumers' leverage needs to be lower. We should not ever again see spending and leverage levels like we saw in the past 25 years.

 

 

I seriously think some people haven't a clue about economics or how they relate to our lives. This is basic supply and demand economics... If people aren't spending money, then there is a surplus in supply, which will lead to deflation. Deflation is where the same amount of money you have now is worth less! There is ABSOLUTELY no way this is a good thing!

 

Your post would make sense in adressing growth at the highest rates maybe but it doesn't make sense for explaining why its been the most profitable quarter ever. And your argument proves that companies don't always reinvest in themselves. Thats the argument i keep hearing. It'll create jobs!!!! Clearly, its not that simple.

 

Or maybe you're the simpleton! I own businesses and I can increase profits tomorrow if I stop spending money, reduced inventory and fired a few people. Hell, I could have record profits in 1 month! Do you seriously believe this sh!t or are you just regurgitation something you heard on TV?

 

Lol, you're out of touch. Japan had a tough time in the 90's but lately, they've been crusing along pretty nicely. Well, thats being optimistic. They're having many of the same problems as us, but they are not so much worse off than us. Some would say they are doing slightly less worse. Unemployment is around 5%.

 

I'm out of touch? You're either the dumbest person in the US or you simply don't have any clue what you are talking about. Japan went from a world power to a nobody overnight! A tough time? WOW! I guess if you consider a complete meltdown of their currency and banking system, the Nikkei falling by nearly 60%, real estate prices falling by 80%, a massive deflationary cycle which resulted in 30% of the wealth being kept on hand because they simply can't trust the system, then yeah... that's a tough time... Now that I think about it.... I guess they're cruising along nicely... After all, it couldn't get much worse!

 

If you would pull your head out of your ass you would notice something... Japan of the 90's is where we are at now. So, I guess you're okay with 20+ years of a US economic meltdown, the devaluation of the dollar and a further collapse of the stock & real estate markets??? You're the one that's out of touch!

 

History always repeats itself. It's cyclical and when it comes around this time, if you're not prepared, you will get washed away!

[IMMensaMind 460]

I seriously think some people haven't a clue about economics or how they relate to our lives. This is basic supply and demand economics... If people aren't spending money, then there is a surplus in supply, which will lead to deflation. Deflation is where the same amount of money you have now is worth less! There is ABSOLUTELY no way this is a good thing!

 

 

 

Or maybe you're the simpleton! I own businesses and I can increase profits tomorrow if I stop spending money, reduced inventory and fired a few people. Hell, I could have record profits in 1 month! Do you seriously believe this sh!t or are you just regurgitation something you heard on TV?

 

 

 

I'm out of touch? You're either the dumbest person in the US or you simply don't have any clue what you are talking about. Japan went from a world power to a nobody overnight! A tough time? WOW! I guess if you consider a complete meltdown of their currency and banking system, the Nikkei falling by nearly 60%, real estate prices falling by 80%, a massive deflationary cycle which resulted in 30% of the wealth being kept on hand because they simply can't trust the system, then yeah... that's a tough time... Now that I think about it.... I guess they're cruising along nicely... After all, it couldn't get much worse!

 

If you would pull your head out of your ass you would notice something... Japan of the 90's is where we are at now. So, I guess you're okay with 20+ years of a US economic meltdown, the devaluation of the dollar and a further collapse of the stock & real estate markets??? You're the one that's out of touch!

 

History always repeats itself. It's cyclical and when it comes around this time, if you're not prepared, you will get washed away!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TylvUGJIi_w

 

So sick of people whose vote actually counts the same as mine not knowing the sh!t they need to know, and instead knowing sh!t that ain't true.

[Reality 2,711]

Even if you disagree with somebody it's tough to see anybody take this type of a$$ raping..

 

alsonotreally

 

 

The Interwebz isn't the best place to just make up random sh!t.. It's kind of easy to call you on it..

[Strike 4,108]

According to the site, ItsbigCurry was last here:

 

Today, 05:03 PM

 

Funny how he's MIA in this thread!!!

 

[PackYourNut 47]

According to the site, ItsbigCurry was last here:

 

Today, 05:03 PM

 

Funny how he's MIA in this thread!!!

 

 

Maybe he's reading up on 8th grade economics and 20th century history, so he doesnt look like a focking idiot next time he posts! :lol:

[Greedo 13]

Nice Dem talking points.

 

How about examples of what you're talking about? We have incredible regulation in this country, and it has done squat to help, and plenty to hurt (witness Freddie and Fannie alone for evidence of that).

 

One example - Glass-Steagall. Removing of this regulation is one of the key causes of our current economic challenges.

 

This economy suffered a massive economic bubble caused by Government meddling in real estate.

 

Link to where the government purchased all the real estate, both residential and commercial, that banks have been foreclosing on?

 

 

AGI range returns % ###### % % above ex/ret

total 138,394,754 1.99

Under $5,000 14,308,963 10.34% 10.34% 89.66% 0.95

$5,000 – $10,000 11,786,747 8.52% 18.86% 81.14% 1.25

$10,000 – $15,000 11,711,680 8.46% 27.32% 72.68% 1.67

$15,000 – $20,000 10,937,694 7.90% 35.22% 64.78% 1.80

$20,000 – $25,000 9,912,261 7.16% 42.38% 57.62% 1.92

$25,000 – $30,000 8,749,761 6.32% 48.71% 51.29% 1.95

$30,000 – $35,000 7,554,418 5.46% 54.17% 45.83% 1.99

$35,000 – $40,000 6,597,407 4.77% 58.93% 41.07% 2.00

$40,000 -$45,000 5,677,163 4.10% 63.03% 36.97% 2.09

$45,000 – $50,000 5,010,030 3.62% 66.65% 33.35% 2.15

$50,000 – $55,000 4,644,439 3.36% 70.01% 29.99% 2.27

$55,000 – $60,000 4,092,692 2.96% 72.97% 27.03% 2.31

$60,000 – $75,000 10,117,786 7.31% 80.28% 19.72% 2.45

$75,000 – $100,000 11,140,408 8.05% 88.33% 11.67% 2.69

$100,000 – $200,000 12,088,423 8.73% 97.06% 2.94% 2.83

$200,000 – $500,000 3,121,485 2.26% 99.32% 0.68% 2.89

$500,000 – $1,000,000 589,306 0.43% 99.74% 0.26% 2.93

$1,000,000 – $1,500,000 150,431 0.11% 99.85% 0.15% 2.88

$1,500,000 – $2,000,000 64,007 0.05% 99.90% 0.10% 2.84

$2,000,000 – $5,000,000 98,724 0.07% 99.97% 0.03% 2.79

$5,000,000 – $10,000,000 24,975 0.02% 99.99% 0.01% 2.83

$10,000,000+ 15,956 0.01% 100.00% 0.00% 2.82

 

Legend

Column 1 – Range of adjusted gross income

Column 2 – Number of returns that fall into this range

Column 3 – Percentage of total returns

Column 4 – Cumulative percentage (percent of return that have this AGI or lower)

Column 5 – Percentage of returns that are above this range

Column 6 – Number of exemptions per return

 

Columns 1 and 2 are taken directly from the IRS spreadsheet. The other columns are calculations based on information from the IRS spreadsheet.

 

This topic is over. Those who think that "the rich" aren't taxed enough are full blown retards.

 

This is an interesting chart, but which piece of data are you using to prove your taxing point? Unless I'm missing something, there are no dollar amounts here of taxes paid.

 

I seriously think some people haven't a clue about economics or how they relate to our lives. This is basic supply and demand economics... If people aren't spending money, then there is a surplus in supply, which will lead to deflation. Deflation is where the same amount of money you have now is worth less! There is ABSOLUTELY no way this is a good thing!

 

The surplus in supply has led to deflation for a time, and the new normal is after a number of businesses have gone away, the supply side adjusts down to the new demand. This is the process we're in, I suspect. I have two finance/economics degrees my friend, a bachelors and an MBA. I have a clue, and the formal training to speak with some authority on these matters. How about you?

 

So sick of people whose vote actually counts the same as mine not knowing the sh!t they need to know, and instead knowing sh!t that ain't true.

 

I'll put my economics and finance credentials up against yours any time - I know plenty.

[Frank M 181]

One example - Glass-Steagall. Removing of this regulation is one of the key causes of our current economic challenges.

 

Link to where the government purchased all the real estate, both residential and commercial, that banks have been foreclosing on?

 

This is an interesting chart, but which piece of data are you using to prove your taxing point? Unless I'm missing something, there are no dollar amounts here of taxes paid.

 

The surplus in supply has led to deflation for a time, and the new normal is after a number of businesses have gone away, the supply side adjusts down to the new demand. This is the process we're in, I suspect. I have two finance/economics degrees my friend, a bachelors and an MBA. I have a clue, and the formal training to speak with some authority on these matters. How about you?

 

I'll put my economics and finance credentials up against yours any time - I know plenty.

 

A little less rationality and a lot more Chicken Little/Slippery Slope/Tinfoil Hat next time, please.

[gocolts 300]

According to the site, ItsbigCurry was last here:

 

Today, 05:03 PM

 

Funny how he's MIA in this thread!!!

 

It's been entertaining, for sure.

[PackYourNut 47]

The surplus in supply has led to deflation for a time, and the new normal is after a number of businesses have gone away, the supply side adjusts down to the new demand. This is the process we're in, I suspect. I have two finance/economics degrees my friend, a bachelors and an MBA. I have a clue, and the formal training to speak with some authority on these matters. How about you?

 

Then you know what I'm talking about and you know that if they don't get the people spending again where we are headed. While your education is swell, it doesn't take a genius to understand basic supply and demand. In fact, I would guess a good history degree would probably come in more handy right now. As for my credentials, I have a BBA with a major in Information Systems and I certainly don't consider myself an expert, nor do I consider what I learned in college 15-20 years ago to be that relevant. However, I have owned and sold multiple businesses and I have first hand experience which IMO is better then formal training any day.

 

This entire downward cycle started with the dot com bubble burst in 2000 and has been festering ever since, resulting in another more significant bubble in 2008. IMO, these two bursts are only the beginning and the real pop hasn't happened yet. I'd rather be prepared, then not prepared and if that makes me chicken little, then that's okay. I know how close we were in 2008 and I highly doubt we will escape it the next time!

[DanXIII 8]

I own businesses and I can increase profits tomorrow if I stop spending money, reduced inventory and fired a few people. Hell, I could have record profits in 1 month!

 

Then why don't you?

 

You sound like a horrible business owner.

 

[PackYourNut 47]

Then why don't you?

 

You sound like a horrible business owner.

 

 

Because I have a long term plan, that includes me not doing any work.

[DanXIII 8]

Because I have a long term plan, that includes me not doing any work.

 

[itsbigmoni 1]

I can't believe i forgot about this thread. I'll be back tomorrow and respond to everyone. I just skimmed through it real quick. I saw that i got owned or something and that mensa said the lower 50% possess a majority of the money. Don't worry fellas, i'll respond to you guys. And where i'm wrong, i'll admit i was wrong. Unlike strike who just ignores when he was wrong constantly and changes the subject or says something demeaning. Because when you dismiss something in a demeaning fashion, it clearly shows the person isn't up to your intellectual standards.

[Strike 4,108]

I can't believe i forgot about this thread. I'll be back tomorrow and respond to everyone. I just skimmed through it real quick. I saw that i got owned or something and that mensa said the lower 50% possess a majority of the money. Don't worry fellas, i'll respond to you guys. And where i'm wrong, i'll admit i was wrong. Unlike strike who just ignores when he was wrong constantly and changes the subject or says something demeaning. Because when you dismiss something in a demeaning fashion, it clearly shows the person isn't up to your intellectual standards.

 

I've admitted when I'm wrong. You've never shown me to be wrong. That's a reflection on you, not me. The fact that no one else is suggesting that anything I said was wrong but they have about things you've said should be a clue to you.

[itsbigmoni 1]

WTF do you mean by "additional" 5%? Are you referring to people who make 20k or the first 20k of everyone? And, either way, can you provide the actual numbers that you refer to as "amounting to ######", or are you just making stuff up again?

 

I was referencing the 50% of people who pay no taxes. You've said half the population doesn't pay any taxes. Those are the ones i was talking about.

[itsbigmoni 1]

You continue to make one retarded statement after another: the lower 50% of income earners possess the majority of the money, you buffoon.

 

 

LOL! I will not be replying to any of your statements in this thread because of this ignorant statement.

[itsbigmoni 1]

Well there isn't much to reply to. There's one comment left i wanna reply to which talks about how much money we'd get if we taxed the 50% of people who don't pay tax 5%. He makes some good points and want to give it a well thought response.

[Strike 4,108]

I was referencing the 50% of people who pay no taxes. You've said half the population doesn't pay any taxes. Those are the ones i was talking about.

 

Fine. BTW, a decent percentage of those same people actual get a refund. You conveniently forgot to answer my follow up question. I asked

 

Either way, can you provide the actual numbers that you refer to as "amounting to ######", or are you just making stuff up again?

 

Please provide some EVIDENCE to support your contention. And you wonder why I give you sh*t. You make stuff up and when called on it ignore being called out. So, I'm asking you to support your contention. Please do so.