Shared publicly  - 
 
Does this make sense to you?
40
52
Monica C's profile photoAaron Gurish's profile photoVeronica Holmes's profile photojames vilaichit's profile photo
22 comments
 
Nice. Conservatives keep wanting to equate the Federal budget to a household budget, so ... there you go.
 
It does not.
Households do not have to accrue long term debt though issuing bonds to fund public infrastructure projects that have lifetimes measured in lifetimes (roads, bridges, airports, water treatment facilities, etc.)
 
+Jonathon Barton those are called major purchases. As in a house or a car or such. Anything expensive enough that it must be financed. Selling bonds is just a method of financing a major purchase that is available to governments.
 
interesting analogy
 
If the entire amount (The 1% & the 99%) were taxed at the same rates (a flat tax) the figure I come up with from the values above is roughly 5.832 TRILLION dollars, or about 2 TRILLION MORE than the 2012 (or was that the 2011) budget. I think we can all agree that the government doesn't need MORE money, it needs LESS, as it can't handle what it spends already! It's pretty clear to me that the issues we're facing as a nation aren't all based on "the 1% paying their fair share", it's also that the government needs to become WAAAAAYYYYY more responsible with our money. How we get there, I have no idea.
 
+james vilaichit Try reading this article:

"The ostensible purpose of the lower capital gains rate is to compensate investors for the risk they take in investing their capital. But private equity and fund managers aren’t investing their own capital. They’re investing other people’s capital. They’re simply money managers. By claiming capital gains treatment, they are passing off regular income as capital gains, simply to save themselves taxes."

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/01/how_billionaires_destroy_democracy/
Before you start using hypothetical examples examine what is actually happening.
 
In the OP's picture to which I was referring, it equates the the rich (ie top20%) with a father in a nuclear household. At the end of the picture is says "If the rich (ie Dad) don't want to pay they can leave" paraphrasing.

TLDR: joke is not funny if you have to explain it.
 
Ah... I get it now. I was more concerned with the numbers, rather than the nomenclature used to illustrate them. If "dad" leaves, aka, if the 20% leave, the gov't will just have to be happy with much less to spend. You can only get so much from the 80% or the 99% before they start getting all Revolutionary War on your ass.
 
WOW!!! awesome! And you know where are all taxes collected from false social security of all people illegally in the United States??? In the time of Clinton, reported about *8 million false Social Security.
Because they can not claim their taxes return at the end of the year for the simple reason that they have a false Social Security number!! and always USA have a surplus*** for this reason. What they do with this? Somebody know something about it?
 
+Andrea Cristiano Maietta I love it when someone throws out that 49% figure. Anyone who actually pays $0 income tax is either rich enough to avoid it or poor enough to not qualify. So what you are saying is that 49% of the population is so poor that they can barely feed themselves and do not qualify for Federal income tax or too rich to care. This is not overlooked. It is what the complaint is all about. So many jobs have been exported that those people who do not qualify to pay Federal income tax has grown to an obscene percentage of the population and yet you would blame them for the problem. Shame on you.
 
+Andrea Cristiano Maietta yeah... a whole damn lot of them are rich people, sadly.
when i was camping at Zuccotti park in the fall a very clean-cut older man camped with us. he was embarrassed about his past, but after we got to know each other a little better, he told me and my son in hushed tones that he had been a financial advisor and spent his life helping rich people avoid paying any taxes. He said he's had a crisis and quit early (he was well-off, btw) and he had come to join OWS out of a creeping sense of outrage over what he knew was happening and what he had participated in, realizing how he'd been effectively robbing the middle class americans who pay pretty much ALL of the taxes for this country.
Greg S.
 
No, a "whole damn lot" of them are not rich people. They are pretty much all people with very very low levels of income. That well-off person you mention is very much the rare exception, a representative of a tiny fraction, and not the rule. I suspect as well that he was exaggerating slightly when he said he helped rich people "avoid paying any taxes" - but rather helped them get into situations not unlike Mitt Romney's, with major percentage reductions, to levels that anyone would say are too low.

There are definitely problems with the tax percentages that the ultra-wealthy pay, but let's not go overboard with hyperbole - that just makes our assertion seem less believable.
 
Sorry to disagree, but a lot of wealthy people avoid paying most of their taxes. I am from a very weathy commmunity, and know firsthand. I know (and have visited) people like the heirs to the campbell soup co. Who literay expatriated theseves to a gated community in the bahamas to avoid paying taxes in the US. They spend plenty of time in the States, and have several houses there, but moved out of country on paper specifically to avoid paying normal percentage taxes like the rest of us. I wd love to say they are the exception, but having lived where i've lived. (Mclean & great falls, va for 20 years, one of the wealthiest areas of the country) finding tax shelters is de rigeur for the wealthy... it's just What You Do, if you have wealth.
If 49% of the population is so far below the poverty level that they don't pay taxes, that wd be a huge condemnation of our country as a total failure as a modern state. That the wealthiest nation in the world had hallf its population below the poverty level wd be more shameful even than the fact that rich people dodge their fair share of taxes.
But yes, it is some combination of both.
 
+Andrea Cristiano Maietta anyone can make a three column chart and make some claims about the numbers. If you want to start swapping links look at this one http://www.infographichub.com/politics/interesting-history-taxes/ The tax rates in the USA are at the lowest in decades and yet you still wine that they are too high. This is the result of trickle down economics that began about 30 years ago. It is the lie that if you just cut taxes and allow the rich to control all that money then everyone will be better off. It has not worked and it will not work for anyone but the top.
 
I think we need to reinstate the tax rates from 1982-1985. The top wage earners (80k/yr+) paid a 50% tax rate. But we need to bump the tiers a little. Anyone making less than the nationwide 2012 poverty rate of 12667/yr (for a family of 1) should not have to pay any income taxes. Anyone making 10 times that amount (126670/yr) or more, should pay the highest tax rate. Anyone between those values should pay on a graduated scale based on income, between 0% and 50%, so if a person makes 95002/year should pay a 37.5% tax rate, a person making 63335/year should pay a 25% tax rate, and a person making 31668/year should pay a 12.5% tax rate, and so on. We should also eliminate loopholes that allow the top wage earners to escape their responsibilities with tax shelters, etc. This would make the entire system more fair, and generate more revenue for the government. We should also tax all income equally, regardless of source (wages vs. capital gains). Based on the 2010 census, the US population is roughly 304423420 people (305 million). If we break this down into the tiers above, that would make about 200,310,610 (200 million) people in the "middle 0-50% tax" bracket, 77,923,395 (78 million) people in the "top 50% tax" bracket, and 26,484,837 (27 million) people in the "bottom - no tax" bracket. To simplify the math a huge amount, it would mean that top 78 million people would be paying at least 50k/yr in taxes - an amount of about 3,900,000,000,000 dollars (3.9 trillion), just from that group. The 200 million middle bracket would be paying 3,166,800,000,000 dollars (3.2 trillion). Total income tax revenue (ballpark) would be 7.1 trillion. The current US budget is much lower than this - $3.796 trillion. I'm fairly certain with some tweaking, we could make a system like this work, and everything would be funded in a fair and equitable way.
Greg S.
 
Flat taxes are great, if you're really, really wealthy.

And maybe we could try describing so-called "entitlements" accuratel - pre-paid retirement and medical insurance, for instance. (I know those terms aren't inflammatory, or at least not in the same way, but oh well.)
Greg S.
 
A consumption tax hits the poor much harder than the wealthy. It's not the spending power (though that helps), it's that the poor spend a greater proportion of what they earn. Not to mention that one would be hard pressed to have the same accountability on the wealthy that one would on the less-wealthy.
 
+Andrea Cristiano Maietta it's not necessary to be rude to someone just because you hold a different opinion. I'm not delusional if I know what i know from seeing it firsthand. :)
And camping in Zuccotti Park doesn't make me delusional either. It might surprise you to know that both my husband and I have excellent jobs, own two homes (one a 10-acre farm), older son headed to Yale in the fall. Why did i camp in Zuccotti park, & why do i take part in OWS protests? Because I am a patriot who loves my country and can't stand to see it being trashed by greed, including people who don't pay their fair share of taxes, people who would destroy our beautiful land for profit, people who think war is a fantastic profit machine, etc. In a weird twist, my family once owned the land that Trinity Church and Zuccotti Park now sit on. The Washington Monument, Supreme court and a lot of other buildings in downtown DC are built from the marble from my family's marble quarries in Vermont. I love this country deeply, and can't stand to see it destroyed by inequality and poverty. We are not a great nation that lets so many of our citizens languish in desperate circumstances and turns a blind eye to their need. With so much wealth, why is there poverty? Why don't people who have more than enough share with those who don't have? Why are the poor the whipping bag for the rich? i don't get it... I am sick of seeing this country destroyed for greed. We are totally interdependent... why is that so hard for some to see?
Add a comment...