VOTE DEMOCRAT IT IS EASIER THAN THINKING

[32AATopIPEandDub]

Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It

Amazon.com: Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It: Edward N. Wolff: Books

I'm just baffled by how many poor schmucks out there that keep supporting our current system as if somehow one day they're going to escape financial enslavement and become super wealthy one day. They're no less brainwashed than the current ERACers drinking that kool-aid.

[Dom182]

Originally Posted by 32AATopIPEandDub

I guess somebody didn't understand the point when I said that income taxes do not mean anything since the top 1% do not have an income of millions or billions of dollars a year where they have to pay half of it to the government. Their earnings from wealth are written off and invested back into their assets where it is TAX FREE.

You know, if you choose to stay blind and ignorant like the last poster, then that's fine. As long as you're happy.

If you think the U.S. only consists of doctors, lawyers, and the rest of the working class, then you're a fool. There are plenty of people that just own assets, invest, and continue to make more and more money with their assets with a very low tax penalty. They just live in total luxury at home, golf with their buddies, and travel around the world. Larry Ellison, who is worth 25 billion dollars, just received a 3 million tax cut to sell his Japanese styled mansion. 3 million dollars to him is like 300 dollars to us.

$3 million tax cut on Larry Ellison's estate

Ok, this point is an old argument but is nonetheless true. If you tax businesses and their earnings, who do you think pays for it. That tax is passed on to the consumer. In addition if the tax is too high the corporation will just cut jobs that can be done by others. Last year EXXON paid over 30 billion in taxes. That is more than the bottom 50% of wage earners paid wich was 24 billion. Yes they had immense profits at 40.6 billion that is only 28cents per gallon profit or about 9.3 cents per dollar. It works out to less than 10% profit margin. In addition they plan to spend about 15 billion in further exploration of oil and alternative fuels. Now say we raise their tax. Go up from the 41% they pay now and go to just 50%. Where do you think that9 percent increase is going to come from.
1. Gas prices will go up
2. Exploration and research will go down.

That is just one example. It is the same with any business model. If you tax them at a higher rate something is going to suffer and you can be certain it is not going to be their profits.

What should really happen is the government should cut their spending by 8%. That would enable them to eliminate the tax completely on the bottom 40% of wage earners, without raising other taxes.

I understand the point that our country tends to be stratified, but the fact is those on the top layer are the ones who employ most everyone else.

[32AATopIPEandDub]

Originally Posted by Dom182

Ok, this point is an old argument but is nonetheless true. If you tax businesses and their earnings, who do you think pays for it. That tax is passed on to the consumer. In addition if the tax is too high the corporation will just cut jobs that can be done by others. Last year EXXON paid over 30 billion in taxes. That is more than the bottom 50% of wage earners paid wich was 24 billion. Yes they had immense profits at 40.6 billion that is only 28cents per gallon profit or about 9.3 cents per dollar. It works out to less than 10% profit margin. In addition they plan to spend about 15 billion in further exploration of oil and alternative fuels. Now say we raise their tax. Go up from the 41% they pay now and go to just 50%. Where do you think that9 percent increase is going to come from.
1. Gas prices will go up
2. Exploration and research will go down.

That is just one example. It is the same with any business model. If you tax them at a higher rate something is going to suffer and you can be certain it is not going to be their profits.

What should really happen is the government should cut their spending by 8%. That would enable them to eliminate the tax completely on the bottom 40% of wage earners, without raising other taxes.

I understand the point that our country tends to be stratified, but the fact is those on the top layer are the ones who employ most everyone else.

Then explain to me how the richest countries in the world that have much more evenly distributed wealth do not have America's tax system? And didn't Clinton already debunk your theories? If what you say is true, then we wouldn't have seen such an economic growth during Clinton's years in office. And don't you dare say that it is because of Reagan. That man set us up for a huge recession of 1987.

[Dom182]

Originally Posted by 32AATopIPEandDub

Then explain to me how the richest countries in the world that have much more evenly distributed wealth do not have America's tax system? And didn't Clinton already debunk your theories? If what you say is true, then we wouldn't have seen such an economic growth during Clinton's years in office. And don't you dare say that it is because of Reagan. That man set us up for a huge recession of 1987.

What richest coutries?

The richest county Luxembourg has a slightly lower income tax rate across the board and a corporate tax rate that is 1/2 of ours.

Number 2 Equatorial Guinea has a top tax rate of 35% for both income and corporate taxes. That is respectively 9% and 9% lower than in the US

Number 3 - United Arab Emirates - No income tax at all. Oil is levied at 55%. Which is passed on to guess who, yep the rest of the world

Number 4 - Norway has a high income tax rate equal to ours at 47% but again we get to corporate tax an they cap at 28%

Number 5 - Ireland 22.4% on income and only 10% on Corporate.

Next is the US. So out of all of them only Norway has a higher income tax, and all have lower corporate or capital gain taxes.

Next, during the Clinton era the tax burden on the top 20% was actualy 4.5% lower than it is now. They paid 75% of the burden as opposed to todays 79.5%. In fact during his time as president he did not raise the top 1percents taxes at all.

Also under Clinton the GDP grew at an average rate of 3.5% Under Bush it has averaged 3.4% even with the current slow down

So to answer your question the Clintons only served to prove my theory. Which to be honest is not theory at all. I deal with these numbers every day

[32AATopIPEandDub]

Originally Posted by Dom182

What richest coutries?

The richest county Luxembourg has a slightly lower income tax rate across the board and a corporate tax rate that is 1/2 of ours.

Number 2 Equatorial Guinea has a top tax rate of 35% for both income and corporate taxes. That is respectively 9% and 9% lower than in the US

Number 3 - United Arab Emirates - No income tax at all. Oil is levied at 55%. Which is passed on to guess who, yep the rest of the world

Number 4 - Norway has a high income tax rate equal to ours at 47% but again we get to corporate tax an they cap at 28%

Number 5 - Ireland 22.4% on income and only 10% on Corporate.

Next is the US. So out of all of them only Norway has a higher income tax, and all have lower corporate or capital gain taxes.

Next, during the Clinton era the tax burden on the top 20% was actualy 4.5% lower than it is now. They paid 75% of the burden as opposed to todays 79.5%. In fact during his time as president he did not raise the top 1percents taxes at all.

Also under Clinton the GDP grew at an average rate of 3.5% Under Bush it has averaged 3.4% even with the current slow down

So to answer your question the Clintons only served to prove my theory. Which to be honest is not theory at all. I deal with these numbers every day

Again you ignore the fact that this has nothing to do with income tax. If you deal with these numbers everyday then you should know that those countries have taxes on wealth, while we do not. Those countries' top 5% do not own over 60% of the assets in their countries.

Wealth and Income Inequality in the USA

[Dom182]

Originally Posted by 32AATopIPEandDub

Again you ignore the fact that this has nothing to do with income tax. If you deal with these numbers everyday then you should know that those countries have taxes on wealth, while we do not. Those countries' top 5% do not own over 60% of the assets in their countries.

Wealth and Income Inequality in the USA

Both the Emirates and Luxemburg have a wealth tax of 1/2% on yearly earnings that is way less than what has been proposed in the US. The Emirates make their money on oil, Luxemburg on Banking

Norway has a wealth tax that is .4% and only on earnings over 540K it is 2% for 200 to 540K hey guess what another oil rich country

Ireland has no wealth tax as a matter of fact they have one of the most accomodating tax systems in existence

Equatoril Guinea has no wealth tax they again make thier money on oil

Also a note. In no place where this kind of tax is in place does it contribute to more than 0.3% of the total tax intake

[Grover]

Originally Posted by Dom182

Massachusets is not a true universal health care system. What they have done is pass a law that requires everyone to purchase private healthcare. THeir solution to those that dont is to fine them. Yet as of December 1, 2007 only 37% of the 657,000 uninsured had gained coverage under the new program. These individuals often feel well served by the reform in that they now have health insurance. However, 79% of these newly insured individuals are very poor people enrolled in Medicaid or similar free plans. Virtually all of them were previously eligible for completely free care funded by the state, but face co-payments under the new plan.

Among the near poor uninsured (who are eligible for partial premium subsidies) only 16% had enrolled in the new coverage. And barely 7% of the uninsured individuals with incomes too high to qualify for subsidies had enrolled according to the official state figures. Few can afford premiums for even the skimpiest coverage; the lowest cost plan offered for a couple in their fifties costs $8,200 annually, and carries a $2,000 per person deductible.

Moreover, the state’s cost for subsidies is running $147 million over the $472 million budgeted for fiscal year 2007. Meanwhile, collections from fines on employers who fail to provide coverage are 80% below the original projections
Isnsurance cost in general have increased under the plan as, the new state agency that brokers private coverage adds its own surcharge of 4.5% to each policy it sells

The program sounds like a bust.

The biggest factor in a successful program is price controls, (as stated before) and I don't see anyone in the US going for that. -Doctors, Pharm companies etc.....

Good luck.

[Dom182]

Originally Posted by Grover

The program sounds like a bust.

The biggest factor in a successful program is price controls, (as stated before) and I don't see anyone in the US going for that. -Doctors, Pharm companies etc.....

Good luck.

Now your beginning to see my point

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Dom182

What richest coutries?

The richest county Luxembourg has a slightly lower income tax rate across the board and a corporate tax rate that is 1/2 of ours.

Number 2 Equatorial Guinea has a top tax rate of 35% for both income and corporate taxes. That is respectively 9% and 9% lower than in the US

Number 3 - United Arab Emirates - No income tax at all. Oil is levied at 55%. Which is passed on to guess who, yep the rest of the world

Number 4 - Norway has a high income tax rate equal to ours at 47% but again we get to corporate tax an they cap at 28%

Number 5 - Ireland 22.4% on income and only 10% on Corporate.

Next is the US. So out of all of them only Norway has a higher income tax, and all have lower corporate or capital gain taxes.

Next, during the Clinton era the tax burden on the top 20% was actualy 4.5% lower than it is now. They paid 75% of the burden as opposed to todays 79.5%. In fact during his time as president he did not raise the top 1percents taxes at all.

Also under Clinton the GDP grew at an average rate of 3.5% Under Bush it has averaged 3.4% even with the current slow down

So to answer your question the Clintons only served to prove my theory. Which to be honest is not theory at all. I deal with these numbers every day

It's great how the Clinton's biggest period of prosperity came during the Bush presidency, they have earned over 100 million dollars. Kinda hard for Hill to talk about how "bad" the economy is now aint it?

[Grover]

Originally Posted by Robert

It's great how the Clinton's biggest period of prosperity came during the Bush presidency, they have earned over 100 million dollars. Kinda hard for Hill to talk about how "bad" the economy is now aint it?

Clinton's biggest period of prosperity came as a highly popular former president...it is irrelavent who was in the White House.