Obama '08?

@ican711nm,

Quote:

I again plead with all here to read "Animal Colony, a cautionary tale for today," (177 pages) by Thomas Allen Rexroth & Mark Andrew Olsen. This book costs about $10.

Why should we read anything you recommend when we already know that you didn't understand it? The book may have been published by Heifer International for all you know.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Same old predictable rebuttal slop by a leftist liberal, JTT.

Same old lack of originality. Are you capable of independent thought?

0 Replies

@parados,

What really bothers me about insurance companies . . . besides their enormous profits . . . is their refusal to cover children with pre-existing conditions.

0 Replies

@parados,

Is everyone aware of the fact that one can not obtain food stamps if one has any money in the bank?

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Furthermore, is everyone aware that food stamps are a discount and not a full subsidy? A patron pays for a certain amount of food stamps (a sort of debit card is now used instead) which increases the food budget by a percentage.

0 Replies

@parados,

My "accusation" is practically word for word the same accusation that was made against the repubs any time they considered cutting the rate of growth of any govt handout or subsidy.

Even when they were still going to spend more money, if they tried to cut the rate of growth, they were crucified and accused of not caring.

0 Replies

@parados,

Those were my sources.

I calculated the top 1%, 5%, and 10% from those sources.

While it took me almost an hour, it certainly was not impossible. Maybe, your problem is you don't know how to compute those numbers from my sources.

However, as I already responded to you, your post of the top 1%, 5%, and 10% was acceptable to me.

The point is that the 1%, 5%, and 10% are paying MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE INCOME TAX. People who earn X% of total taxable income ought not have to pay more than X% of total income taxes, because of Article I, Section 8, and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the USA.

4 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

The point is that the 1%, 5%, and 10% are paying MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE INCOME TAX.

No, they are paying less than their fair share. They ought to be paying more.

You can directly link the drop in Federal revenues and the beginning of giant Deficits to the Reagan era and the slashing of top marginal rates. We ought to restore those rates which existed before his presidency as soon as possible, as there has been zero evidence that these low rates do anything but make the rich, richer. Certainly there has been no greater level of investment or growth of the economy based on those lower rates, as compared to periods before then.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Those were my sources.

I calculated the top 1%, 5%, and 10% from those sources.

Then you should be able to provide your math.

Actually I found your numbers on the IRS website for the year 2005, so I don't think you calculated your numbers at all. You just took them from the IRS and claimed they were for a different year.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

The point is that the 1%, 5%, and 10% are paying MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE INCOME TAX. People who earn X% of total taxable income ought not have to pay more than X% of total income taxes, because of Article I, Section 8, and the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the USA.

Which leads me right back to pointing out that you want to ignore 50% of taxation when you decide what is fair.

That would be like arguing that since you got 25% of the ice cream and I got 25% it was split evenly while ignoring that you got the other 50% for a total of 75%. You are being dishonest ican. There is no other way to describe it.

The top 1% earn 21% of the income and pay 21% of the total taxes. That is hardly "unfair" under your argument that they should pay the same.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

(1) Federal Revenues increased by more than a factor of 5 when the tax rates decreased and remained lower 1980-2010.
(2) Percent of Civilian population Employed rose from 1980-2007.
(3) Percent of Civilian population Employed remained higher than it was in 1980 until 2010 when it became lower than in 1980.

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2009
...
1971-1981: minimum = 14%; maximum = 70% [CARTER 1977-1981]
1982-1986: minimum = 11%; maximum = 50% [REAGAN 1981-1989]
1987-1987: minimum = 11%; maximum = 38.5%
1988-1990: minimum = 15%; maximum = 33% [BUSH41 1989-1993]
1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%
1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]
2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1% [BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6%
2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%
2009-2010: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%[OBAMA 2001-2010]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Year.......FEDERAL RECEIPTS FINAL FULL YEAR OF TERM
1980......$0.517 trillion [CARTER]
1988….…$0.909 trillion [REAGAN]
1992.......$1.091 trillion [BUSH41]
2000......$2.025 trillion [CLINTON]
2008......$2.521 trillion [BUSH43]
2010.......$2,931[OBAMA] (current estimate for year not end of term)

Quote:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year……TOTAL US CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
1980……………..99 million [CARTER]
1988…………… 115 million [REAGAN]
1992…………….118 million [BUSH41]
2000……………137 million [CLINTON]
2007………..….146 million [BUSH43]
2008………….. 145 million [BUSH43]
2009,……….....140 million [OBAMA]
2010.……………139 million [OBAMA] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)

Year.…….PERCENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATION EMPLOYED
1980…………………………………….59.2 [CARTER]
1988…………………………………….62.3 [REAGAN]
1992…………………………………….61.5 [BUSH41]
2000…………………………………….64.4 [CLINTON]
2007…………………………………….63.0 [BUSH43]
2008…………………………………….62.2 [BUSH43]
2009…………………………………….59.3 [OBAMA]
2010…………………………………….58.5 [OBAMA] (as of August 2010 and not final year of term)

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I found your numbers on the IRS website for the year 2005 ...

Very interesting! You claim my numbers match the numbers you found for the year 2005, 2 years after 2003 when the maximum tax rate was reduced from 38.6% to 35%. Obviously, the maximum tax rate of 35% led to the top 10% of tax payers paying 65% of the taxes in 2005.

Parados, are you really sure your numbers for 2005 are correct? If they are correct, your 2005 numbers support my point, not yours.

Quote:

http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/hhinc/new06_000.htm
Percent of American Income Tax Payers, Percent of All Annual Incomes, Percent of All Taxes Paid, and Average Annual Incomes

(my numbers and parados's alleged 2005 numbers)

POITP = Percent Of Income Tax Payers
POAI = Percent Of All Income
POAITP = Percent Of All Income Taxes Paid
AAI = Average Annual Income

POITP…POAI…POAITP…AAI
…1%.…...21%…40%… $365,000
…5%.…...30%…56%… $145,283
…10%.…..43%…65%… $103,912

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
Partial History of U.S. Federal Income Tax Rates
Highest and lowest Income Tax Rates 1971 to 2009
...
2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1% [BUSH43 2001-2009]
2002-2002: minimum = 10%; maximum = 38.6%
2003-2009: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%
2009-2010: minimum = 10%; maximum = 35%[OBAMA 2001-2010]

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

I calculated the top 1%, 5%, and 10% from those sources.

While it took me almost an hour, it certainly was not impossible. Maybe, your problem is you don't know how to compute those numbers from my sources.

Then you wasted an hour because those figures are widely available. Maybe, your problem is you don't know how to use common sources.

Quote:

The point is that the 1%, 5%, and 10% are paying MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE INCOME TAX

That is not the point at all. The point is that the top quintile is the only segment of the economy not facing unemployment; that the top quintile has seen its real income rise dramatically while the top 1% has seen it skyrocket while 80% of the working population has stagnated.

These are the people who are responsible for the mess the economy is in. The do nothings. The fat cats. The disgusting belchers who rape and rob the 80% that actually does the work.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican.. You are claiming the numbers are for 2008.

I get tired of your lies. You repeat them over and over.

Actually, I found your numbers in a 2nd grade coloring book and not in any IRS figures.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

The point is that the top quintile is the only segment of the economy not facing unemployment; that the top quintile has seen its real income rise dramatically while the top 1% has seen it skyrocket while 80% of the working population has stagnated.

These are the people who are responsible for the mess the economy is in. The do nothings. The fat cats. The disgusting belchers who rape and rob the 80% that actually does the work.

……………….~~~~~~~!??!??! ~~~~~~
……………….~~~~~~~(O|O) ~~~~
…………………~~~~~ ( \~o~/ ) ~~~~
………………..THAT'S MERELY MORE OF YOUR LEFTIST LIBERAL NONSENSE

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

The CEOs have rigged the pay scale. The board of directors of most corporations are CEOs in other companies thus giving themselves benefits out of proportion to what a normal corporation in Europe or Japan would pay.

1 Reply

@talk72000,

talk72000 wrote:

The CEOs have rigged the pay scale. The board of directors of most corporations are CEOs in other companies thus giving themselves benefits out of proportion to what a normal corporation in Europe or Japan would pay.

What we need is serious reform of regulations governing corporations, to control the abuse, either that or go back to the high marginal tax rates for obcenely high pay packages in corporations that exceed maybe 150 grand or perhaps more. I hate to have to go there, but if stockholders are being abused by corporate boards paying their buddies, I do think we need some kind of reform or something. I used to work for a major corporation, and I do recall certain corporations that traded execs on their boards, so that they could take care of each other. For example, the CEO's of certain corporations might have also served as board members of other corporations, wherein they voted to reward their buddies in those corporations with ridiculous pay packages, while they also were rewarded by those same buddies serving on the board of their company. Of course, such abuse eventually leads to financial problems, but does it make sense to wait for those companies to self destruct when the practice is so widespread?

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

What we need is serious reform of regulations governing corporations, to control the abuse, either that or go back to the high marginal tax rates for obcenely high pay packages in corporations that exceed maybe 150 grand or perhaps more. I hate to have to go there, but if stockholders are being abused by corporate boards paying their buddies, I do think we need some kind of reform or something.

We've secretly replaced okie with a marxist socialist. Let's see how long before anyone notices.

2 Replies

@parados,

Perhaps you failed to notice that okie did say "I hate to have to go there". It is admittedly a socialist view though: but hardly a Marxist one. It is a view in general practice in all western Christian societies.

It's a bit like declaring somebody a fundie Puritan because they object to the knickerless can-can being performed on prime time TV.

Do you object to the knickerless can-can being performed on prime time TV parados?

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

We've secretly replaced okie with a marxist socialist. Let's see how long before anyone notices.

Good to know. I thought someone hacked into his account. I know I sat here agape!

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know