Listen to the rich guy............

[mcwoodduck]

Oh by the way did anyone notice Buffett said he should give some of his tax money so some senior would not have to pay 6,000 a person in what was no longer covered by medicare.  Can I ask one quick question.  Who's budget was it that took 1/2 a billion out of the Medicare budget?  Obama.  Pelosi and Reid were the speaker of the house and leader of the senate.  UHHHH  it's the Liberals that stole from the Seniors and the rich are being blamed for it.
Again TM7  my question to you still stands.  What percentage of the rich's income is too much for the government to take?  The answer for a conservative is, god wants 10% so government shoud be that or less.  To a liberal if the rich were paying 99.995% of their income it would still not be enough and they need to pay their fair share.  Under Carter the top marginal rate was 90%.  Think about that you make a Dollar and the government get 90 cents of it.  Well under Carter and the Democrat controlled Congress there was run away inflation and deficit spending and the liberals were calling for higher taxes.   There were no new jobs, Then like now we had over 50% teenage unemployment. 

[SwampThing762]

TM7,

I pay my fair share of taxes.....I work.    How about you have your liberal buddies shake down the fifty percent who pay no taxes?  How about you have your liberal buddies go after GE for not paying their fair share of taxes? 

ST762

[subdjoe]

Interesting piece. Especially the way he mixes types of income and goes back and forth between individual and household incomes.

Interesting bit here: "In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion "

Hmmm....OK, let's make it simple. Tax the top 400 at 100%. What does that bring in for the federal coffers? And let's round up some - call it $100,000,000,000. So 100,000,000,000/14,000,000,000,000 (hmmm...carry the..and the decimal goes....) WOW! That comes to about 0.7%!!!!

Or the other number that he threw in for us, about 237,000 households (not individuals) with incomes over $1,000,000/year (he didn't say where that number comes from, but let's take it as fact). Now, most of those, I think it safe to assume, will be a lot closer to the $1,000,000 than to $10,000,000 - near as I can make from the tables I've found about 85 to 90% fall in that range, I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you care to check things yourself. What percentage of the debt can we really expect to cover if we were to tax everything over $1,000,000 at, oh, 90%? 2%? 3%? Still sounds a whole lot more like a spending problem than a revenue problem to me.

Funny how all those rich leftists shout that we need to 'tax the rich' but none of them seem to be willing to cash in their chips and send a big check to the feds. Not that it would do much good - if we were to totally strip all the wealth from the top 10 in the US, the feds would get 300 billion (roughly). Stripping the top three - all whom are very left leaning - would bring in about 125 billion.

Nor do we see the left wing politicians, with the cry of 'tax the rich' on their lips, willingly cashing in their chips and giving to the feds or state. Kerry docking his huge yacht out of state so he doesn't have to pay taxes on it - heck, not even selling his huge yacht and giving that money to the feds. We don't see DiFi selling her roughly $100,000,000 in assets and giving that to the government.

And Pelosi: "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) saw her net worth rise 62 percent last year, cementing her status as one of the wealthiest members of Congress.

Pelosi was worth at least $35.2 million in the 2010 calendar year, according to a financial disclosure report released Wednesday. She reported a minimum of $43.4 million in assets and about $8.2 milion in liabilities." Don't see her stripping herself of her wealth.

Buffett's piece is a nice bit of class warfare propaganda.

Not to say that the tax code doesn't need a major rework:

By the way, if you go to the US Government Printing Office ( www.gpo.gov ), you can order a complete set of Title 26 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (that's the part written by the IRS), all twenty volumes of it, at the bargain price of $974, shipping included.

According to the US Government Printing Office, it's 13,458 pages in total. The full text of Title 26 of the United States Code (the part written by Congress--available for an additional $179) is a mere 3,387 printed pages, bringing the adjusted gross page count to 16,845.

[wareagleguy]

I have one question on this subject.


Who of those that has posted on this subject has made a billion in the stock market.... ??
Well, until anyone here has made the money Warren Buffet has made I will listen to him because I know he knows more about the subject than anyone here.  PERIOD.  If he says he and others like him should pay more in taxes I'm going to believe him.

[-Shaggy-]

I have one question on this subject.


Who of those that has posted on this subject has made a billion in the stock market.... ??
Well, until anyone here has made the money Warren Buffet has made I will listen to him because I know he knows more about the subject than anyone here.  PERIOD.  If he says he and others like him should pay more in taxes I'm going to believe him.

There is nothing stopping him from paying more in taxes if he wants to, so he can put up or shut up. PERIOD.

[ironglow]

  It is very interesting to note that some of those who think  'income distribution' is fine..don't really like the idea when applied to themselves personally.  Here an interviewer speaks to some California university students who believe 'income redistribution' is a good idea.
   I think we should keep in mind, these students..though bright, have little to no "real world" experience.   Virtually their whole life has been from one classroom to another...little or no experience dealing with long term layoffs, military service, down-n-dirty jobs, meeting a payroll etc;
 
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss
 
  Hey kids; it's different when "the chickens come home to roost", isn't it !

[mcwoodduck]

  It is very interesting to note that some of those who think  'income distribution' is fine..don't really like the idea when applied to themselves personally.  Here an interviewer speaks to some California university students who believe 'income redistribution' is a good idea.
   I think we should keep in mind, these students..though bright, have little to no "real world" experience.   Virtually their whole life has been from one classroom to another...little or no experience dealing with long term layoffs, military service, down-n-dirty jobs, meeting a payroll etc;
 
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOyaJ2UI7Ss
 
  Hey kids; it's different when "the chickens come home to roost", isn't it !

Everyone is willing to divy up others stuff, especally when you don't have anything.  Asking a bunch of students if they think we should steal from others that worked for iut is like asking a 4 year old if they want ice cream.  The 4 year old does not understand where the ice cream comes from, other than the store or the freezer, does not understand what it takes to make the icecream and that there are different grades of icecream, they just want it.  And they will start to get upset if it is not handed over right now.  All a 4 year old can do is stomp off or cry and Student can use democracy to steal your stuff by voting for the idiots that said "lets divy up his stuff.  Students all want more, and the law of Economics is we have unlimited wants and limited means.  Capitalism is the best system to allocate those limited means.  Theft is not and will only lead to a shortage of goods and services later.  but these are the same kids that get upset when they have to pay for music they want ot have in an MP3 player, but want the fame and furtune that comes with the intelectual property of the music.

[Dixie Dude]

I also disagree with Crusty on this.  For one, we have lost about half of our manufacturing base, we import 60% of our oil which is half of our trade deficit.  If we were like we were back 60 years ago, it might work.  Today, our money is going overseas and doesn't get into the economic circle.  The circle being producers supply products to wholesalers, wholesalers sell the products to retailers, we provide the labor to the producers, money flows in the opposite direction.  Now, if the money goes overseas, doesn't mean it will flow back into this circle.  Government taxes all along the way.  If producers are overseas, government can't tax these, so they loose a tax base. 
 
To get the economy on the right track, we need to renegotiate the "free trade" agreements to make them fair, or add a tarriff on the imported goods. 
 
And, we need to produce our own energy so the money stays in America producing jobs and a tax base.  Government is the basic problem here.  We need to drill, mine, and produce our own energy here.  Reasonable regulations shouldn't mean NO drilling, NO pipelines, NO mining. 
 
To offset the tarriffs, we might have to give tax breaks to corporations to bring back manufacturing.  China has no corporate income tax. The average Chinese is about $0.10 an hour wage, we can't compete with that.  They have no social security (employers pay half of that remember).  No child labor laws, no 40 hour workweek laws, and no minimum wage laws.  (We can't compete with that).  Free trade needs to add a tarriff to compensate for these costs born by American companies. 
 
Remember Ross Perot and the "giant sucking sound".  It happened, and now see where we are. 
 
Basic needs are and were always produced.  Canning factories for food.  Clothing and shoes will aways wear out and need replacing, but none are made here anymore or very little.  Cars will eventually need replacing.  So, bring back the factories and jobs will come back. 
 
Government doesn't have to spend more money, or more stimulus money to kick start the economy.  It WILL NOT HAPPEN because we have no industry to make it happen, we import too much.  Government just needs to change the rules, especially with foreign countries and allow the energy industry to expand here and stop importing oil and cheap foreign products. 

[mcwoodduck]

DD....Ok some of what you say is spot on.
 
 
But please do the research on China and Taxes...they have a very progressive income tax up to 45%, a national sales tax of 17%, and average corp taxes of 25%.....few loopholes, too.
 
I encourage you and others to check out the Chinese tax scene:  http://www.taxrates.cc/html/china-tax-rates.html
 
This information kinda blows a hole in the current self-styled conservative myth to further cut taxes and corp taxes in the USA to promote jobs and prosperity.  Conservatives think that the top 1%-5% are being held down...poppycock..they are the freeist among us to do what they like. IT IS ACTUALLY THE AVERAGE AMERICA CITIZEN THAT HIS HELD DOWN.
 
...TM7
.

Problem is China has a culture of everything is the Governments and you are given what you need, Marx / Lennin - From each to ach according to his means.    When you have a slave state and a few privelidged have to pay into the system, who cares how much they have to pay to the over lords.  Who cares what a communist country allows their people to keep. 
After all if you want the same repressive system as China then Move their. We are talking about our country and how the liberals have made it so we had to send manufacturing there due to the repressive rules and regulations that NON elected people have put on our industries.  The Chinese Comunist systems does not care about it's people!  The see them as a burden in most cases and are more than willing to get rid of some.  They have no safety codes to follow in construction, they have no OCEA to protect workers, The have NO EPA standards of any kind.  There are not any FDA safe guards on the food or drugs and human testing is easier than lab animals, they have almost 2 Billion people and the life of a slave is nothing to the leadership.  The Workers paradise is a major problem for water standards, air standards, and chemical run off.  Look at the places the Soviet Union left as a disaster.  Look at the state of infastructure of Cuba, or North Korea, or Viet Nam, or Angola.  All Communist countries that needed larger Communist countries for them to work. 
Well again who cares what the communists take from their privelidged few to prop up their immoral government.  We know that a fair playing feild, Laws, not rules and regulations, and limited government intrusion into the market.  The rich move up and down the line, the poor too move up and down the line.  Excessive taxes keep the Rich rich and the poor poor and slowly eliminate the middle class making a lopsided dumb bell curve of distrubution. 
I know Facts and economic laws drive you nuts as it seem like we should just steal from the rich.  But I have a question.  If we have a spending problem, raising taxes only increases debt spending (decreases revinue to the government) why would we want to raise taxes.  We just increased our debt limit to cover the excessive spending we have.  And on that note we had a president that did not say we needed to cut white house parties and travel to cut spending, the president did not cut aid to countries hostile to us to save and stay under the debt limit,  He did not stop payments to what is now illegally funding ACORN, he saisd he would halt Social Security payments if he did not get his way and could not spend excessivly.   Why is it always the American Tax payers that need to pony up more everytime some one over spends?  Why do we have to do with less?  Why can't the Government do with less?  My budget has a priority level to it, why does the federal budget not have a priority list?  Paying obligations first like debt service, Social Security, Medicare, our troops, then make cuts.  Congress pay, presidential pay, travel, equipment aid to forgien countries, and the state department.  Why is it ok for Corperate america to lay  have to off  workers but we can not lay off government workers, how may aids does a senator need?

[hillbill]

what real math tells us, is that even if we confiscate all of the present wealth and yearly earnings of the millionaires and billionaires in the good ole USA.it still would not even come close to fixing the goverment spending problems.i for one am glad i dont work in areas like luxury houseing, boat building, property development, high end car manufactureing,resort and vacation industry,private jet manufactureing etc.cuz i would be out of a job pretty soon.untill we get the 48% of the people who are on the dole, off the dole, this country will end up exactly like the UK.

[Empty Quiver]

Taxing the rich guy has nothing to do with fixing this financial mess.


This is all about feelings. It's all about fairness. It's salve for the recipients.


 Cripes, Warren owns the company I work for, I don't care about his wealth personally, but I am smart enough to recognise his money is just a good days spending for Congress, a day of Christmas shopping if you will. There are not enough Buffets, Gates or Soros's for that matter to run a country this detached from reality.

[magooch]

The government invests government pension funds in the stock market?  I guess I'd have to see proof of that.  I was under the impression that government pensions are paid right out of the federal treasury.  Wouldn't it be hypocritical of people like Nancy Pelosi to constantly charge that it would be foolish to allow S.S. funds to be invested in the market, but for her own pension it is fine?
 
Don't take that to mean that I am thrilled with the market these days.  I actually do not think that federal pension funds should be invested in the stock market.  And that would include S.S. monies.  There would always be the temptation to manipulate the market and there is enough of that already.
 
My suggestion is that federal pension and S.S. funds should be invested in federal projects that are income producing, such as electrical power generation and water projects, etc.  That may not be in keeping with the capitalism model, but projects like the TVA, Bonneville and others have worked pretty well for a long time.  I'd love to see some Columbia River water sold to SoCAl and Arizona.

[ironglow]

mcwoodduck.....
 
Everything in China is not given to you, nor are they strict Marxist...both are  false premises; as was the premise they have no taxes. Fact is they have plenty of taxes and corp taxes....possiblely more of a burden then our own tax system; especially when one consideres that top 1400 tax payers zeroed their taxes here, and top 400 corps zeroed their's or even got credits.  Fact is US taxes have been cut and loopholed for 40 years to shift to middle class; and wealth/influence has accummulated in fewer an fewer hands.  Top 5% now pays taxes at net effective rate equal to middle class (ard 17.4%) yet their incomes have soared while middle class incomes have dropped...same with poor,,,now poorer than ever.

Nobody is arguing to stop boondoggle spending. For cripes sake, it was Rumsfeld who announced that $2.3 trillion was missing/unaccounted by the pnetacon day before 911...
 
Fact is:  There is no correlation in cutting taxes and giving ever bigger breaks to top tier folks and job creation.  The only correlation is export of jobs, huge wealth discrepancy, deficit, and corruption; and a let them eat cake society. Fact#2:  The US stock exchange is essentially owned by the governmnet when largest portion of fund ownership is governmnet pension and other programs.
 
At the very least the USA should adopt a tax program similar to China's...
 
..TM7
.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   You claim that" nobody is arguing to stop boondoggle spending".. Have you been living under a rock for 2 years ?  The Tea Party has virtually sprung into existence with the following slogan..
             " we don't have a revenue problem..we have a spending problem" !
     Obama & co has had 3.5 years..2 of them with complete control, to stop or slow spending...and what did they do ?  They spent more than all the administrations before them combined..
  The Republicans aren't much better..having at times had enough control to reduce spending..but still didn't do it !
 
   Obama and the Democrats complain that corps aren't paying their "fair share" of taxes..so what does he do ?  He takes the head of a giant corporation which made 20.3 billions of dollars..profit, but paid zero, nil.. nada, in taxes to the US.....and appoints him as "jobs czar" !
      That is about par for the course.. being as he appointed a tax cheat as 'treasury secretary'..             
 
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/05/immelt_the_jobs_czar_from_hell_109452.html
 
   TM; Will you please address the hypocrisy of B. Hussein .. appointing Immelt as jobs czar..and tax cheat Geitner as treasury secretary ?
 
  It's about time voters smartened up and realized we have no hope of getting things straightened out with entrenched Democrats or Republicans.  Our only hope (but no guarantee), lies with those endorsed by the Tea Party.  At least there is a CHANCE there, considering there is NO CHANCE with the Reps & Dems..
 
     VOTE TEA PARTY !!!
   

[mcwoodduck]

mcwoodduck.....
 
Everything in China is not given to you, nor are they strict Marxist...both are  false premises; as was the premise they have no taxes. Fact is they have plenty of taxes and corp taxes....possiblely more of a burden then our own tax system; especially when one consideres that top 1400 tax payers zeroed their taxes here, and top 400 corps zeroed their's or even got credits.  Fact is US taxes have been cut and loopholed for 40 years to shift to middle class; and wealth/influence has accummulated in fewer an fewer hands.  Top 5% now pays taxes at net effective rate equal to middle class (ard 17.4%) yet their incomes have soared while middle class incomes have dropped...same with poor,,,now poorer than ever.

Nobody is arguing to stop boondoggle spending. For cripes sake, it was Rumsfeld who announced that $2.3 trillion was missing/unaccounted by the pnetacon day before 911...
 
Fact is:  There is no correlation in cutting taxes and giving ever bigger breaks to top tier folks and job creation.  The only correlation is export of jobs, huge wealth discrepancy, deficit, and corruption; and a let them eat cake society. Fact#2:  The US stock exchange is essentially owned by the governmnet when largest portion of fund ownership is governmnet pension and other programs.
 
At the very least the USA should adopt a tax program similar to China's...
 
..TM7
.

There is a HUGE corralation between cutting taxes and Revinue to the government, There is a HUGE corralation between cutting taxes and the growth of the economy.  The problem we have is three fold.  The tax code is repressive, there are too many rules and regulations by too many government agencies that act as taxes, and we have a body of the government that if we gave them a Quadtrillion they would spend more!
 
Now as for China and the 45% tax rate, I would love it.  Right now my total taxes are about 56% when you add in all the Federal taxes, (Remember the Democrats took the FICA payments from the lock box and put them in the general fund, and then spent them.) the state taxes, the local taxes, the fees that hide as taxes.  Please sign up the nation so we can write one check a month for 45% and NEVER pay another tax or fee.  But then something will come up and someone will create another tax or fee to pay for some pet project.  There is always another project, Program, or what have you and the taxes never go away.  We still have a tax on your phone bill to pay for the SPANISH AMERICAN war in 1899!   The tax was specific, don't you think we have paid for the Spanish American war yet?  Everyone that fought in it is dead, all the kids of the people that fought in it are dead.  Why do we still have this tax?  Oh by the way this tax brings in a month more than the war cost the government in 1899 including the building of the Maine.
 
The problem we had with the last round of Federal tax cuts is many states saw the tax cut as an oppertunity to increase their taxes and fees.  When the Bush tax cut came around I was supose to have an extra $600.  The State of California added $800 in new taxes and fees, killing my oppertunity to dump a little more into the economy and get us out of our funk.
 
We have a government that acts like a 10 year old with grocery money.  The spend it all on candy and then ask for more to buy the things they were sent to get.  And stupid us we give them more moeny and are shocked when they show up with more candy and no groceries.
I understand you are a liberal and the answer to every problem is government.  I see the the government as the source of the bulk of the problems.  You were the kid in school that any time there was something you ran to the teacher or the hall monitor and told to have them take care of it.  You need to have someone else take care of your problems and bullys.  There becomes a bigger problem when the teacher becomes the class bully.   

[ironglow]

  Have to be careful about accepting 'off the cuff' tax level estimates.  Here's a summary of China's tax levels for 2011:
 
  http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Global/Local%20Assets/Documents/Tax/Intl%20Tax%20and%20Business%20Guides/2011/dtt_tax_highlight_2011_China.pdf
 
     Middle column, second second paragraph from bottom..indicates 25% corporate tax.  Third column indicates there are many possible "brteaks" for corporations..
 
       ..But who says we should emulate China anyway ?  Reagan proved that less taxes means more govt income.

[mcwoodduck]

  Have to be careful about accepting 'off the cuff' tax level estimates.  Here's a summary of China's tax levels for 2011:
 
  http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Global/Local%20Assets/Documents/Tax/Intl%20Tax%20and%20Business%20Guides/2011/dtt_tax_highlight_2011_China.pdf
 
     Middle column, second second paragraph from bottom..indicates 25% corporate tax.  Third column indicates there are many possible "brteaks" for corporations..
 
       ..But who says we should emulate China anyway ?  Reagan proved that less taxes means more govt income.

Iron glow I agree whole hartedly and said so in an earlier post.  But I gave him the the idea of the 45% tax, showing him that even with 45 % we are still paying more with all the added taxes in the form of hidden taxes, fees, fines, on the federal, state and local levels, not to mention all the hidden extra taxes that companies hav to pay for you.  Remember that every $1 you pay in FICA your company pays $2.  That is money they could be paying you or you could use for a 401K, Pension plan, or a college fund for your kids, grandkids or other.  China is the State and you only have one tax, not 18 small taxes that nickel and dime you into the poor house.  Acording to what TM-7 wrote about the poor people he should be infavor of elimating Sales tax as it effects the poor and middle class more than others.  That we should eliminate the road taxes in gasoline because again $5 a gallon would effect you or me more than Buffett.  Again the cost of the tax in the gas adds to shipping costs and the price of goods,  We also should end all the personal property taxes? Again hurts the poor and middle class more and discourages purchasing things.   

[JustaShooter]

top 1400 tax payers zeroed their taxes here

That old canard again?  I thought we dealt with that before I went on vacation.  For the record, the implication that the "top 1400 tax payers zeroed their taxes" is misleading.  According to http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09inalcr.pdf in 2009, of the 235,413 taxpayers who earned $1 million or more in 2009, 1,470 of them paid no taxes.  That is, 0.6% - one out of every 167 - of those making over $1 million payed no taxes.  That's a bit different than the "top 1400 tax payers zeroed their taxes". 

As previously discussed, all that means is they suffered sufficient losses or had other legitimate ways to lower their adjusted gross income to where they paid no taxes.  Let me ask you this - do you take every deduction you are entitled to?  Why shouldn't someone else do the same, simply because they make more money than you?

Let me ask you another question - if you earned 1 million dollars from your salary and/or primary business or whatever, but through other investments, business ventures, etc. lost 1 million dollars (or more), what should your taxable income be?

Top 5% now pays taxes at net effective rate equal to middle class (ard 17.4%)

Would love to see the source for that, given that from IRS and other sources it is a bit higher than that, better than 20%:

The top 5% each earned $159,619 or more in income (as of 2008, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html)
The top 5% earned 34.7% of the nation's income. (as of 2008, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html)
The top 5% paid 58.72% of federal income taxes (as of 2008, http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html)

Total income taxes collected in 2008: 1,031,580,923,000 (just over 1 trillion dollars) (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in12ms.xls)

So, then we can see that:

Total income taxes collected from top 5%: 605,000,000,000 (rounded to nearest billion)
Total taxable income from top 5%: 2,867,000,000,000 (rounded to nearest billion)
Effective tax rate for top 5%: 21.1%

Hmm.  Apply math to verifiable data from published sources and come up with repeatable results.  Gotta love that, don't you?

yet their incomes have soared while middle class incomes have dropped...same with poor,,,now poorer than ever.

Odd, here's what the Census bureau shows (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/H03AR_2009.xls):

For the 10 years ending 2009 (the last year census data is available):

The mean (average) income for the lowest 20% of households increased by 16.5%
The mean (average) income for the second 20% of households increased by 20.2%
The mean (average) income for the third 20% of households increased by 21.6%
The mean (average) income for the fourth 20% of households increased by 24.1%
The mean (average) income for the fifth 20% of households increased by 26.3%
The mean (average) income for the top 5% of households increased by 25.7%
 
Huh.  Income for all groups increased, and one could hardly call 25.7% over 10 years - an average of 2.57% per year - "soaring".  Once again, facts and math win out over unfounded speculation.

Just a Shooter
 

[Empty Quiver]

You come in here with all your fancy statistics mucking up a perfect rich bashing thread.   How dare you. It feels    like the rich are keeping the middle class down. It's the dissproportionate wealth gains that need to be addressed.


You know good and well math is hard, and made purposely so by the rich. Statistics are the evil spawn of mathemagicians.   Just how do you expect the common man ( proletariate to those Obamanese in the crowd ) to understand such things? It ain't fair they can risk a million dollars to invest in a factory. Let them play Power Ball like the rest of us if they want to be rich. I ain't climbing no ladder, I'll knock theirs over, see how they like it.


Sadly, I fear your stats and time are wasted.

[ironglow]

   Just checking back;
 
     
    Yeah, Warren Buffet gives a bit yearly to the Bill Gates tax deductable foundation, gaining tax deductions..but that is because it pursues his personal interests.
 
  Has anybody seen or read where old Warren has personally handed out a few billion of his dollars to people less wealthy..even in his own home state of Nebraska ?
 
   I haven't heard of him even "redistributing" a few paultry millions to less wealthy people, especially where no tax deduction is taken...
  If you Buffet fans can find it..please post here, please..

[JustaShooter]

justashooter:   Quote

Top 5% now pays taxes at net effective rate equal to middle class (ard 17.4%)

  Would love to see the source for that, given that from IRS and other sources it is a bit higher than that, better than 20%:

 
Sure...!
 
Here is the data.... why not look at corporate tax as % GDP at same time; also history of captial gains taxation as 66% of top income quintile report maximun income from cap gains:
.
 
 Top 400 AGI tax rate....scroll to bottom of table on right for average eff tax rate
 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=260&Topic2id=48
.

Top 400 instead of top 5% - not what we were discussing.
   

Please study this table for effective tax rate on income basis...you may interpolate effective tax rate on average for over 200K income group...what do you calculate?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=366&Topic2id=48   
.

404 not found - link broken, try again.

History of capital gains and tax rates
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161
.

Capital gains, again, not what we were discussing.

Corporate Income tax as a share of GDP...what is the trend and what is your comparison with Euro or other economies.?
.
 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact 
.

404 not found - link broken, try again.

Sorry, not enough actual, relevant data to continue the discussion - and I don't have time to try to unravel your broken links to see if there is something there to support your claims or not.

Just a Shooter

[JustaShooter]

yet their incomes have soared while middle class incomes have dropped...same with poor,,,now poorer than ever.

Odd, here's what the Census bureau shows (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/H03AR_2009.xls):

For the 10 years ending 2009 (the last year census data is available):

The mean (average) income for the lowest 20% of households increased by 16.5%
The mean (average) income for the second 20% of households increased by 20.2%
The mean (average) income for the third 20% of households increased by 21.6%
The mean (average) income for the fourth 20% of households increased by 24.1%
The mean (average) income for the fifth 20% of households increased by 26.3%
The mean (average) income for the top 5% of households increased by 25.7%

The above is a little bit of slight of hand,,,first the above link is not official US Census data, it is data extraplolated from a US Census source.

Not sure why you'd say that, it is the US Census actual data from their historical tables section.

Secondly, when looking at US Census data know they use CPI (consumer price index) to relate their data...this is very erroneous as well.

That data is unadjusted, current dollars.

Here is some actual US Census data:
 
One can easily calculate the percent drop in median income from 2005 to 2009...3.4% I believe.

Different time frame than I showed, so not surprising the data show different results, it is also unclear what that table is based on - total US households, bottom quintile, etc.  Do properly attribute your data if you expect it to be taken seriously.

Note, I snipped the table in the quote below because the formatting got scrambled when I quoted it and I don't have the time to fix it.

Here is some more data from the US Census bureau which shows 'soaring' incomes from 1982 to 2003....this is even more pronounced when we look data to 2009. Meanwhile, top 20% no 55% (80% by some sources) income in the USA....
 
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2004[1] (Page 44/45)

The table showed total and percent of increase from 1967, again a much different comparison.  Also, on an annualized basis, the increase is a bit over 2% per year - again, not exactly "soaring."

We can address tax issues in another post......TM7 

As I've already replied, nothing there to continue the discussion.  Nothing here either, really.  Once the different basis for the information is removed, and the data normalized, it doesn't say what is claimed.

Just a Shooter

[ironglow]

  Some here must have studied economics unde professors Marx and Chavez !  Any added cost to produce a product MUST be added into the final cost.  It's that simple !

[mcwoodduck]

  Some here must have studied economics unde professors Marx and Chavez !  Any added cost to produce a product MUST be added into the final cost.  It's that simple !

.
That's not exactly the case....One can only charge what a product is intrinsicly worth to a buyer, and what other similar competitors sell products for.....taxes may not be the largest cost per unit...actually might be one of the least costs.
 
..TM7

OK so your have the concept of Substituion goods.   You understand that if a profit can be made other people will enter the market.  Yo kind of grasp the 1st law of economics " willing and able to pay". 
The willing is not the hard part.  The able is the hard part.  You have a limited income and setting priorities to your wants and needs.
If you increase the costs of your needs more of your wants are going to have to wait.
Now we need to get you to understand supply and demand that is part of the first law.  As prices increase demand decreases.   As demand decreases, production decreases, economies of scale change and costs rise again. 
Taxes while needed for goverment to operate, excessive taxes hinder commerce.  The problem we have is between what is excessive tax. 
The problem with Liberals is either by stupidity or design the exessive taxatiuon they claim to help the poor only hurts them.  I say by design as the poor will turn to government for an answer as to why they lost their job, can't make a living wage, or that their standard of living has gone down.   And yes I said by design.  The worse off and the more poor you have you build up a voting power base to generate their power.

[crustylicious]

[ironglow]

  ENVY..old green headed ENVY..is a powerful motivating factor..for some..
   
  We do NOT have a "revenue" problem...we have a "spending" problem... when I see congress cancelling some of the useless, self-serving programs..ACORN, ACLU, NEA, Planned Parenthood and a thousand other stupid, political programs that produce more misery than useful  effects..and they SHRINK government in general.   ...Then I may start to think the fat cat congresmen may be trying.
   
                                               Until they do that ..they are just "blowing smoke"..

[mcwoodduck]

Crusty, listen buddy liberalism sounds good in therory it does not work in practice.
In reality water is 1/3 Oxygen and we need oxygen to live.  The air is not 30% oxygen.
Someone that thinks it sounds like a good idea to use the oxygen to live and asks a scientist if a solution of 33% would be bad for you.  The answer is no 33% oxygen will not hurt you.  He continues to promote breathing water as an alternative and healthier for you as it has more O2.  So we should take all the O2 in the air and make it into water.  And it sounds good, till you try it in practice.  You drown. Unfortunatly the idea to turn all the O2 in to water will end us all much like liberism.  Sounds good, it sounds better, but in practrice it does not work. 

[ironglow]

  Yes;
    Ivy league, pointy headed liberal ideas sound good when they do their classroom "modeling"..but they don't work in the real world.
  Ask Castro...    

[DDZ]

Liberals will never admit their idea doesn't work. Their answer is always we just haven't done enough of it yet.
Also, ever notice how liberals always create the exact opposite of their intent.   

[mcwoodduck]

Liberals will never admit their idea doesn't work. Their answer is always we just haven't done enough of it yet.
Also, ever notice how liberals always create the exact opposite of their intent.   

I wonder sometimes if it is by design or by stupidity.
Clearly no one can be that stupid  or arrogant to see history all over the world where socialism and communism have not worked or they think that they can chage the outcome some how.
Big goverment/ the nanny state needs people to take care of, needs people to be poor, uneducated, and willing to blame another group for the problem.  Look at Germany after WWI, a groups that wanted to take charge argued and bullied people as well as blamed other groups for the problems.  The Democrats must have paid attention to some history classes and took from the lessons how to control the masses and gain power, rather than seeing what evil people do to gain power and avoiding it. 

[ironglow]

Liberals will never admit their idea doesn't work. Their answer is always we just haven't done enough of it yet.
Also, ever notice how liberals always create the exact opposite of their intent.   

  ****************************************************************************
   DDZ;
   Are you sure the misery we now have, IS the opposite of their intent ?