PDA

View Full Version : Republican lies. #621



Qtec
06-13-2011, 03:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These Republicans have been <u>falsely claiming that the richest one percent of Americans pay 40 percent of all federal taxes:</u>

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): Well, remember, again, already the top 1 percent of income earners pay about 40 percent of <u>all taxes into the federal government.</u>

REP. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): They are saying our budget is completely imbalanced because we donít tax major corporations more and we donít tax wealthy individuals more. <u>Iím thinking the top 1 percent already pays 40 percent of the taxes in America.</u>

While the richest one percent of Americans do pay about 40 percent of the total federal <u>income taxes</u> paid in the country, thatís a far cry from 40 percent of<u> overall taxes</u>. Even those working Americans who donít make enough money to have federal income tax liability <u>pay federal payroll and excise taxes, which fall much harder on the middle-class and low-income individuals than those at the upper end of the income scale.</u>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>Once all taxes are taken into account,</u> according to the Congressional Budget Office, <u>the richest one percent of Americans pay about 28 percent of total federal taxes, which is right in line with their 25 percent share of total income.</u> <span style="color: #000099">And therein lies the real story: the richest one percent of Americans pay such a large share of federal income taxes because they make such a large share of the overall income:</span></span>

Income inequality in the U.S. is currently the worst its been since the 1920s. <u>Just the richest 400 Americans hold more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of Americans combined, and the richest 10 percent of Americans control two-thirds of the countryís net worth.</u>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>To House Republicans, though, this wealth concentration is a reason not to raise taxes on the very rich. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll out today shows that 72 percent of Americans support Obamaís proposal to raise taxes on the richest Americans to reduce the deficit, while large majorities oppose the GOPís proposals to cut Medicare and Medicaid. </span></div></div>


Two charts everyone should see.


http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png


This is wealth distribution on steroids and the Republicans want more of the same.

Q

LWW
06-13-2011, 05:15 AM
What do you think those graphs tell you?

Qtec
06-13-2011, 05:28 AM
What do you think those graphs tell you?

Q

LWW
06-13-2011, 05:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These Republicans have been <u>falsely claiming that the richest one percent of Americans pay 40 percent of all federal taxes:</u>

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): Well, remember, again, already the top 1 percent of income earners pay about 40 percent of <u>all taxes into the federal government.</u>

REP. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): They are saying our budget is completely imbalanced because we donít tax major corporations more and we donít tax wealthy individuals more. <u>Iím thinking the top 1 percent already pays 40 percent of the taxes in America.</u>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>While the richest one percent of Americans do pay about 40 percent of the total federal <u>income taxes</u> paid in the country, thatís a far cry from 40 percent of<u> overall taxes</u></span>. Even those working Americans who donít make enough money to have federal income tax liability <u>pay federal payroll and excise taxes, which fall much harder on the middle-class and low-income individuals than those at the upper end of the income scale.</u></div></div>

Q</div></div>

BTW ... if you actually had English comprehension skills you would realize how they were pimping you.

Yes, the top 1% pay 40%+/- of all income taxes ... as your own source says.

It then tries to take the income tax paid by the top 1% and claim that the top 1% pay no other taxes atall as they are using the income tax of the top 1% divided by total taxes to come up with a Bravo Sierra number to put on the spoon.

When you take into account the top 1% buy more stuff (higher sales taxes) drive bigger cars with larger engines more miles (higher fuel taxes) take more flights (more airline tax) yadda yadda yadda ... well, the 40% figure would probably go even higher.

Now, let's compare that to the old progressive way of doing thing before the great Satan <span style='font-size: 20pt'>R-R-R-RAY - G-G-G-GUNNNN!!!</span> started the tax cuts:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These data show that after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. The graph below illustrates changes in the tax burden during this period.

The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. </div></div>

The Bush era tax cuts raised the top 1%'s rate to the 40% level.

My source? THE REGIME. (http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm)

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/fig-1.gif

Now, in closing, since the banksters and uber rich own the democrook party I can see why they would want a return to an era where they could easily hide income and buy influence, reducing their tax burden in half.

My questions to you are:

1 - Why are you supporting tax breaks for the top 1%?

2 - Why do you repeatedly allow yourself to be pimped like this?

Qtec
06-13-2011, 06:45 AM
For a start, your link comes from 1996!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..and the chart stops at 1993!

Q


Dickwad said.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1 - Why are you supporting tax breaks for the top 1%? </div></div>

Show me where I said that moron.

Qtec
06-13-2011, 06:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, the top 1% pay 40% of all income taxes </div></div>

NO THEY DON'T you friggin imbecile. The post shows/proves that.!!???????

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While the richest one percent of Americans do pay about 40 percent of the total federal income taxes paid in the country, thatís a far cry from 40 percent of overall taxes. </div></div>

No point in me saying it in Dutch because you don't speak the lingo.

Jou dorpje heeft jou geroepen LWW, ze willen hun idiot terug hebben.

Q............lul



Q

LWW
06-13-2011, 08:24 AM
Actually ... believing the story you linked to proves you haven't a clue WTH you are talking about. Again.

LWW
06-13-2011, 08:28 AM
Just to torture you and your tortured logic:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-n70Q9jL-zks/TbB5isZWnBI/AAAAAAAAPOY/mu2vq43lstI/s400/taxrates.jpg

And I'll ask you again ... why are you demanding that the top 1% pay less of the tax burden?

And, again, for your article to hold water one must contend that the top 1% pay almost zero property tax, sales tax, FICA tax, MEDICARE tax, or any other tax.

Qtec
06-13-2011, 08:56 AM
Got a link to that chart?

Source?

Any context?

Q

Qtec
06-13-2011, 09:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just to torture you and your tortured logic:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-n70Q9jL-zks/TbB5isZWnBI/AAAAAAAAPOY/mu2vq43lstI/s400/taxrates.jpg

And I'll ask you again ... why are you demanding that the top 1% pay less of the tax burden?

And, again, for your article to hold water one must contend that the top 1% pay almost zero property tax, sales tax, FICA tax, MEDICARE tax, or any other tax.

</div></div>

What does your chart tell you?

If the top 1% are paying <u>more tax</u> under a <u>lower rate</u>, then there can only be one explanation.

Think about it.

Q

LWW
06-13-2011, 11:39 AM
1 - The chart is a link to itself.

2 - YOUR source agrees with it. meaning you are now ... again ... arguing with your own source.

3 - That in itself proves you don't understand the issue.

4 - You obviously lack the wits to find the source on your own ... it did take a MENSAN such as myself several seconds to find ... so here it is:

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>&gt;&gt;&gt;CLICK HERE SNOOPY&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/04/tax-rates-and-share-of-tax-revenues.html) </span>

Qtec
06-17-2011, 12:40 AM
You still don't friggin get it!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-n70Q9jL-zks/TbB5isZWnBI/AAAAAAAAPOY/mu2vq43lstI/s400/taxrates.jpg

Your chart shows - just as mine does- that while the tax rate for the top 1% has gone down.....[ and here it comes ]....<span style='font-size: 14pt'> they are now paying a greater share of the total income tax revenue?</span>

<u>How do you account for this?</u>

If you take off the tin foil hat and put your thinking cap on you might just get it.

Q

LWW
06-17-2011, 12:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You still don't friggin get it!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-n70Q9jL-zks/TbB5isZWnBI/AAAAAAAAPOY/mu2vq43lstI/s400/taxrates.jpg

Your chart shows - just as mine does- that while the tax rate for the top 1% has gone down.....[ and here it comes ]....<span style='font-size: 14pt'> they are now paying a greater share of the total income tax revenue?</span>

Q </div></div>

And you are wanting them to shoulder a lower percentage of the burden, shifting the load back onto the backs of the poor and middle class.

Why?

Opps.

I forgot.

Because the inner party members told you that you support this.

LWW
06-17-2011, 12:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u>How do you account for this?</u>

Q </div></div>

Easy ... I reject the spoon feedings.

First off, the Bush era tax cuts removed millions of Americans from the income tax rolls entirely. That alone shifted a higher percentage of the burden onto the higher income earners ... although as a stand alone item it would have, at best, been revenue neutral and may well have decreased total gubmint revenue.

By lowering top rates from their confiscatory highs of the Carter era ... 70% of everything over $200K per year, several things happened:

1 - Talented individuals who in the past would have shut down for the year once they had hit the $200K level kept working. If that person saw benefit to continue working and earn another $50K at a 35% top rate the total revenue would have went up.

2 - Wealth began to migrate from bonds, especially tax free, into stocks and capital investments. Although these type investments carried higher risks, they also carried higher rewards ... and when those higher rewards were being taken away by the state when they worked out well, only the risk remained making them far less likely to be taken.

3 - Money started to come from the underground economy back into the light of day.

Soflasnapper
06-17-2011, 04:06 PM
First off, the Bush era tax cuts removed millions of Americans from the income tax rolls entirely.

This is misleading. The tax bracket cuts didn't do any such thing, as they didn't change the tax-exempt income floor. If anything did that, it might have been the increased child tax credit, which already existed at about $500 per child, and it was increased to $1,000 per child. So perhaps, if people with one child owed only $500 prior to Bush's regime, or owed only x times $500 per child, then they might have had enough tax credit to not pay anything after the tax credit. But to TAKE the tax credit required having tax to pay, so these people were still on the income tax rolls.

By lowering top rates from their confiscatory highs of the Carter era ... 70% of everything over $200K per year, several things happened:

Carter reduced the 70% top bracket to 50% himself, for 'earned income.' The 70% top bracket only applied to 'unearned income,' i.e., non-wage income-- rents, royalties, dividends and interest income. Not the fruits of labor, but the fruits of capital holdings.

ugotda7
06-17-2011, 04:24 PM
I don't think I've ever seen a person start so many threads on things he just doesn't understand......yet for some reason in his own ignorant mind he thinks that they prove some kind of enlightening gotcha point based on the erroneous information in his own confused mind.

I really do think he deserves some kind of #1 Internet Dumbass award or something.

What a joke he is.

LWW
06-18-2011, 05:53 AM
I can think of a few other contenders.

Gayle in MD
06-21-2011, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">First off, the Bush era tax cuts removed millions of Americans from the income tax rolls entirely.

This is misleading. The tax bracket cuts didn't do any such thing, as they didn't change the tax-exempt income floor. If anything did that, it might have been the increased child tax credit, which already existed at about $500 per child, and it was increased to $1,000 per child. So perhaps, if people with one child owed only $500 prior to Bush's regime, or owed only x times $500 per child, then they might have had enough tax credit to not pay anything after the tax credit. But to TAKE the tax credit required having tax to pay, so these people were still on the income tax rolls.

By lowering top rates from their confiscatory highs of the Carter era ... 70% of everything over $200K per year, several things happened:

Carter reduced the 70% top bracket to 50% himself, for 'earned income.' The 70% top bracket only applied to 'unearned income,' i.e., non-wage income-- rents, royalties, dividends and interest income. Not the fruits of labor, but the fruits of capital holdings. </div></div>

You know you're dealing with radical RW nutjobs when you prove them wrogn, and they follow up by celebrating defeat!

Their brains only function on Fux Noise propaganda. All other charts, proof, historical facts, are immediately filterd out by their Flyover automatic reality filter

G.