Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/10/pay-gap-richest-poorest/2793343/ Not! No, we can't afford anything in this country! Cut more middle class government jobs, we need a tax break, lol.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 http://www.usatoday....oorest/2793343/ Not! No, we can't afford anything in this country! Cut more middle class government jobs, we need a tax break, lol. This proves it. The GOP is right. More tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is the only way to go. How are the rest of us supposed to get jobs in the coming years if they aren't pulling in at least 22% of the income?
B-Man Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 gatorman[/b]' timestamp='1378862540' post='2904347']http://www.usatoday....oorest/2793343/ Not! No, we can't afford anything in this country! Cut more middle class government jobs, we need a tax break, lol. Bigfatbillsfan[/b]' timestamp='1378865610' post='2904390']This proves it. The GOP is right. More tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans is the only way to go. How are the rest of us supposed to get jobs in the coming years if they aren't pulling in at least 22% of the income?
KD in CA Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/10/pay-gap-richest-poorest/2793343/ Not! No, we can't afford anything in this country! Cut more middle class government jobs, we need a tax break, lol. Middle class government jobs?? Government doesn't exist to create unnecessary jobs moron.
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 http://www.usatoday....oorest/2793343/ Not! No, we can't afford anything in this country! Cut more middle class government jobs, we need a tax break, lol. So a study discovered that the top 1% experienced 86% income growth - which is apparently bad - during a time span when the stock market tripled - which, as it happened under a Democratic administration, is apparently good. How do you people even reconcile your own belief system with itself?
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted September 11, 2013 Author Posted September 11, 2013 Middle class government jobs?? Government doesn't exist to create unnecessary jobs moron. Your right, let's toss more Americans under the bus, good plan So a study discovered that the top 1% experienced 86% income growth - which is apparently bad - during a time span when the stock market tripled - which, as it happened under a Democratic administration, is apparently good. How do you people even reconcile your own belief system with itself? Sorry, this is refuting the idea spread by you morons that Obama is somehow destroying the wealthy and the belief spread by you right winger that welfare people have all the money
meazza Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 (edited) Sorry, this is refuting the idea spread by you morons that Obama is somehow destroying the wealthy and the belief spread by you right winger that welfare people have all the money Who the !@#$ ever argued that people on welfare have all the money? Edited September 11, 2013 by meazza
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 Who the !@#$ ever argued that people on welfare have all the money? Next ask him how much revenue would be generated if your taxed the top 1% of all earners at 100% of their income.
meazza Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 Next ask him how much revenue would be generated if your taxed the top 1% of all earners at 100% of their income. Forget it. No point debating with dave.
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 Forget it. No point debating with dave. Obviously, but I'm going to repost some data, which I've shared here before, which decimates his "argument". The United States Government does not have, nor has it ever had, a revenue problem. The United States Government has a spending problem. I'll break it down for you. - The federal government collected over $11,000.00 in tax revenue per citizen over the age of 18 in the year 2010 - The federal government spent over $18,000.00 per citizen over the age of 18 (and that is accepting official figures, which tend to understate spending) - The median income for citizens over the age of 18 in the year 2010 was $25,149.00 What does this mean? It means that the federal government is spending more than 70% of everything it's citizens earn. Can a nation sustain itself under this kind of spending burden? Can it's citizens?
jjamie12 Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 Sorry, this is refuting the idea spread by you morons that Obama is somehow destroying the wealthy and the belief spread by you right winger that welfare people have all the money You've got it wrong. The 'morons' here have been arguing that President Obama's plans will actually hurt the poor and middle class. That has been a consistent theme here. So far, you'd have to say they were right. The wealthy are doing just fine. It's the poor and middle class that have gotten squeezed, just like folks here predicted.
Jauronimo Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 Is this thread gonna mention hammers? I hope so. Surplus capital gets me all hot.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted September 11, 2013 Author Posted September 11, 2013 Next ask him how much revenue would be generated if your taxed the top 1% of all earners at 100% of their income. Yes, because that's being proposed
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 Yes, because that's being proposed No, it's a serious question. If you taxed the wealthiest 1% at a rate of 100%, how much revenue would it raise?
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted September 11, 2013 Author Posted September 11, 2013 Obviously, but I'm going to repost some data, which I've shared here before, which decimates his "argument". The United States Government does not have, nor has it ever had, a revenue problem. The United States Government has a spending problem. I'll break it down for you. - The federal government collected over $11,000.00 in tax revenue per citizen over the age of 18 in the year 2010 - The federal government spent over $18,000.00 per citizen over the age of 18 (and that is accepting official figures, which tend to understate spending) - The median income for citizens over the age of 18 in the year 2010 was $25,149.00 What does this mean? It means that the federal government is spending more than 70% of everything it's citizens earn. Can a nation sustain itself under this kind of spending burden? Can it's citizens? This is all total bull. Per citizen? Read the article at the start of the thread. The point is that $11,000 a 1% isn't jack. Their tax burden could be higher and their life style wouldn't even be affected if you generated 20% more revenue from them. You are using averages to disguise the very point that there is a huge stratification of wealth in the nation. And please do not read anything into this that I have not stated, like the crap about 100% taxation. Your straw men are silly No, it's a serious question. If you taxed the wealthiest 1% at a rate of 100%, how much revenue would it raise? Who cares? It's not going to ever happen
Nanker Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 Is this thread gonna mention hammers? 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 I hear it coming!
Chef Jim Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 This is all total bull. Per citizen? Read the article at the start of the thread. The point is that $11,000 a 1% isn't jack. Their tax burden could be higher and their life style wouldn't even be affected if you generated 20% more revenue from them. You are using averages to disguise the very point that there is a huge stratification of wealth in the nation. And please do not read anything into this that I have not stated, like the crap about 100% taxation. Your straw men are silly Let me ask you. If you had 20% less income would you be personally affected?
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 Yes, because that's being proposed It has been proposed...remember the "windfall" taxes that were suggested to confiscate money that people earned after the point at which they'd "earned enough?"
Jauronimo Posted September 11, 2013 Posted September 11, 2013 Who cares? It's not going to ever happen You just started a thread to refute arguments that were never made. Since when do you give a **** about things which are going to or have happened?
Recommended Posts