|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509 |
Quote:
Federal govt's main expenditures are Social Security (almost everyone gets), Medicare (which almost everyone over 65+ gets), and Defense (everyone gets some benefit).....which one do you not want or do you want to cut?
question is not specific to arch
Everything has to be out on the table.
Everything.
There need to be across the board budget cuts. Entire layers of bureaucracy need to be stripped away. Entire departments need to be abolished.
Cutting spending by 15% would save us $450 billion per year.
Unfortunately, this isn't enough. We need to collect more taxes. This means that we need to tax everyone. All wage earners need to pay taxes. Everyone. We cannot afford to give away billions in tax credits. We cannot expect just the "rich" to support us.
If our federal budget is $3 trillion, then we need to collect $3.5 - $4 trillion in order to start paying down our debt.
People talk of taking care of the debt when times are good .... but it never happens. Deficit spending during an economic downturn would not be bad if we had a plan for managing it. The problem is that there is never a plan, and deficit spending is the norm.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
If our federal budget is $3 trillion, then we need to collect $3.5 - $4 trillion in order to start paying down our debt.
That would pay the debt off in about 15-20 years.. If you can do that while still providing basic services, I'll vote for you for President TOMORROW. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
Federal govt's main expenditures are Social Security (almost everyone gets), Medicare (which almost everyone over 65+ gets), and Defense (everyone gets some benefit).....which one do you not want or do you want to cut?
question is not specific to arch
Everything has to be out on the table.
Everything.
There need to be across the board budget cuts. Entire layers of bureaucracy need to be stripped away. Entire departments need to be abolished.
Cutting spending by 15% would save us $450 billion per year.
Unfortunately, this isn't enough. We need to collect more taxes. This means that we need to tax everyone. All wage earners need to pay taxes. Everyone. We cannot afford to give away billions in tax credits. We cannot expect just the "rich" to support us.
If our federal budget is $3 trillion, then we need to collect $3.5 - $4 trillion in order to start paying down our debt.
People talk of taking care of the debt when times are good .... but it never happens. Deficit spending during an economic downturn would not be bad if we had a plan for managing it. The problem is that there is never a plan, and deficit spending is the norm.
Exactly.
And this whole "I don't need to save money, ss will take care of me" attitude is BS. No one has a "right" to quit working at age 62, or 65, and expect the gov't. to send them a check each month that pays their housing, food, utilities, etc. That is not a right.
I USED to make a good living - things have gotten tough in the last 1 1/2 years, 2 years......but even prior to that I reconciled with the fact that I will never be "retired". I will work till the day I die. And I'm fine with that.
GOV'T. needs to be cut. Gov't. cannot continue being the largest hirer in the country.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,316 |
Glad you guys are on board because most Americans (D & R) don't want to give up either. Personally, I'd like the government to provide retiree health care b/c I know my employer won't and I don't want to spend all my retirement $ on healthcare. Social security I can do with out, but I really don't think people would like to see the alternative when people that are 60, 70, 80 are living in gutters and abortion rates double
I'm coming home, I'm coming home, tell the world I'm coming home
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
No one has a "right" to quit working at age 62, or 65, and expect the gov't. to send them a check each month that pays their housing, food, utilities, etc. That is not a right.
It is if they have taken 13-14% of my money for the 40+ years that I worked hard with the promise to pay it back.. essentially they have borrowed that money from me to pay retirees that have retired before me and I'd like it back. I'll gladly take whatever they have borrowed in a check today, they can stop taking it and we'll call it even.. but damn it, I've been subsidizing their reckless spending for 20 years and I WANT MY FREAKIN' MONEY BACK.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 15,573
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 15,573 |
Quote:
Quote:
Capital gains are a sensitve issue for those who trade stock and is a manner for corporations to pass income to managment at less than ordinary income rates. The 15 percent bracket made this practice commonplace.
Care to elaborate?
Willie- What he is referring to is many in the financial sector i.e., hedge fund managers, stock traders, managing directors pay nothing in federal income tax. With the capital gains tax being at 15% it is obviously lower than the 35% tax bracket, therefore income is passed on as dividends etc...to avoid the income tax and only pay the 15% capital gains rate. It's really a great scam they got going.
For example, my brother-in-law works for a major brokerage firm in NYC and is a managing director. He made $2.6Mil last year. He paid $0 in federal income taxes as all the income was passed on as dividends etc, thus he only had to pay just the 15% capital gains tax on his earnings.
Now, he made great money, but imagine the hedge fund manager that is making $200-$400Mil per year and all his income received falls under capital gains tax and pays a mere 15%. It was a nice perk of the tax cut plan for the brass in the financial world.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288 |
If you are an employee and get paid for your services, then NONE of that payment is capital gain income. It is ALL subject to ordinary income tax and rates.
No company can pay earnings to its employees in the form of dividends...it cannot be done.
Only the owners of a stock/investment can receive dividends.
There are many missing pieces to your examples.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683 |
Stock options.
Employer offers stock that is discounted.
Employee buy the options and holds for a period of time to get the 15 percent tax rate. Plus dividends and plus or minus market value adjustment for the stock price.
Employee sells option and the capital gains are taxed at 15 percent.
Better than taking income which is taxed at above 35/39.6 percent.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Federal govt's main expenditures are Social Security (almost everyone gets), Medicare (which almost everyone over 65+ gets), and Defense (everyone gets some benefit).....which one do you not want or do you want to cut?
question is not specific to arch
Here is the first place I'd start. It's from CNN, and there is political bias from both sides.......I'm well aware of that.
But look at what money is being spent on hilljack crap!!!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/03/senators.stimulus.spending/index.html?hpt=T2
There are probably hundreds of thousands of other examples.........this country is screwed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,531
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,531 |
Quote:
Quote:
Federal govt's main expenditures are Social Security (almost everyone gets), Medicare (which almost everyone over 65+ gets), and Defense (everyone gets some benefit).....which one do you not want or do you want to cut?
question is not specific to arch
Everything has to be out on the table.
Everything.
There need to be across the board budget cuts. Entire layers of bureaucracy need to be stripped away. Entire departments need to be abolished.
Cutting spending by 15% would save us $450 billion per year.
Unfortunately, this isn't enough. We need to collect more taxes. This means that we need to tax everyone. All wage earners need to pay taxes. Everyone. We cannot afford to give away billions in tax credits. We cannot expect just the "rich" to support us.
If our federal budget is $3 trillion, then we need to collect $3.5 - $4 trillion in order to start paying down our debt.
People talk of taking care of the debt when times are good .... but it never happens. Deficit spending during an economic downturn would not be bad if we had a plan for managing it. The problem is that there is never a plan, and deficit spending is the norm.
I'm completely with you YTown, and I'd like to add...rather...elaborate more on something you brought up.
When someone climbs out of debt, not only do they try to make more money, but they also try to reduce their budget. That may mean spending less on beer (God forbid!), or getting rid of cable television, and not just giving money away to people.
Well, our country not only needs to gather that revenue, but it NEEDS to start reducing the expenditures. Social security, welfare, defense spending, and dare I say unemployment benefits...should all be placed on the chopping block. It doesn't seem that complicated, but at the same time, our government JUST figured out how to stop paying dead people.......
If our country's expenditures equal $3 trillion, we need to bring in $3.5 to $4 trillion, but we also need to try and bring that $3 trillion down to $2.5 trillion.
JMHO.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 15,573
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 15,573 |
Bingo Willie...hedge fund managers, manging partners, etc... Do not pay federal taxes. They are not treated as direct employees. They pay $0 in federal income taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509 |
From your article: Quote:
Liz Oxhorn, the White House spokesperson for the Recovery Act, called the senators' report a partisan effort intended to undermine the overall success of the Recovery Act.
According to Oxhorn, new research shows stimulus money is responsible for nearly 3 million jobs and has lowered unemployment by 1.5 percent.
OK ..... this should be simple enough.
I would say to the administration .....
Prove it.
Prove that this stimulus spending abomination has created 3 million jobs, and show where they were created. Should be simple enough. Actually tie spending to jobs. Prove that your plan worked rather than just saying that it did. Let's see the evidence.
Wanna bet that proof never actually materializes? 
The news industry just takes all of this garbage that the administraion dishes out as gospel without the slightest investigation.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Prove that this stimulus spending abomination has created 3 million jobs, and show where they were created. Should be simple enough. Actually tie spending to jobs. Prove that your plan worked rather than just saying that it did. Let's see the evidence.
Wanna bet that proof never actually materializes?
They must have some evidence, some research, some report, just to say it.. (or not) but you are right, it should take them doing the research, that should already be done, just show it to people so other economists can confirm or dispute.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/Pages/JobSummary.aspx?qtr=2010Q2http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/17/stimulus-report-card/The first link is to the reported jobs data. The second reports on the findings of four independent analysis firms (including the CBO). The second report sets the range (up to Feb 2010) at 800,000 to 2.4 million jobs created/saved. The administration definitely cherry picked the high end, estimating about 30% above the average of all analysis (six months ago they were estimating 2 million jobs). It looks like most of the money (and most of the jobs) went to the Department of Education as well as state grants for education. To me, this is a good thing (assuming the money is being spent in the following ways). I feel that stimulus is much better spent retraining the work force for new jobs (as some manufacturing jobs are gone forever) as well as investing in education of our younger generation, preparing them for a new economy (which will have to materialize. Similar to places like Cleveland and Pittsburgh, where the manufacturing jobs have gone, the US will have to change economically). In contrast, it seems very few jobs went to the private sector. Again, I don't have a problem here. In general, I feel that the private sector needs to hire new people when they need them; not because the government gave them a short term grant. One hypothetical (probably very simplistic), if a firm experiences enough demand to require 200 workers, how does anyone benefit if the government simply gives them money to hire 50 more, if there isn't enough work to be done? IMO, the net result here is that the private sector is at a standstill; the government is redistributing resources into education/re-education of the population until the private sector can recover.
Last edited by tjs7; 08/04/10 08:48 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288 |
Quote:
Stock options.
Employer offers stock that is discounted.
Nope.
Quote:
Employee buy the options...
Employee exercises the option and pays taxes on the value of the stock when the option was granted
Quote:
and holds (the option) for a period of time to get the 15 percent tax rate.
You could do the same thing.
Quote:
Plus dividends and plus or minus market value adjustment for the stock price.
You could do the same thing.
Quote:
Employee sells option and the capital gains are taxed at 15 percent.
Sells the option or the stock? Either way...you could do the same thing.
Quote:
Better than taking income which is taxed at above 35/39.6 percent.
Earned income CANNOT be paid in the form of anything other than earned income. Stock options - when exercised - become earned income.
You could buy stock options...hold them until the value increase...then exercise them.
You do know that for that past several years, stock options have gone un-exercised because the value of the stock has dropped BELOW the option price.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288 |
Quote:
Bingo
Willie...hedge fund managers, manging partners, etc... Do not pay federal taxes. They are not treated as direct employees. They pay $0 in federal income taxes.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Earned income cannot be paid to anyone in any form other than taxable earned income. It CANNOT be converted to anything that affords capital gain treatment.
Hedge fund managers and managing partners who pay $0 in federal income taxes are not doing something to "earn" income. (I'd like to see their tax returns because I do not believe they are paying $0 federal taxes and making any significant money at it.)
If they are paying taxes at a 15% rate on ALL their income, it is because they OWN stocks, options, etc. and buy and sell their own investments for a profit. The very definition of capital gain. Not to mention that the capital gain in question must be long-term to get favorable tax teatment...long-term meaning that the investment is held for one year or longer.
If they get paid to manage someone else's money, THAT remuneration is earned income - no matter how they get it - and must be taxed at ordinary tax rates - NOT capital gain rates with the potential of $0 taxes.
There ARE certain "day traders" - which could include hedge fund managers, managing partners, you, me - who can avoid paying FICA/ Medicare taxes if they qualify...and THAT is crap. However, the income they earn from short-term capital gain is taxed at ordinary tax rates - NOT capital gain tax rates.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Sorry, I don't see it as a good thing when the only sector of the economy that is actually growing in jobs is the government whether it's education or anything else. Quote:
One hypothetical (probably very simplistic), if a firm experiences enough demand to require 200 workers, how does anyone benefit if the government simply gives them money to hire 50 more, if there isn't enough work to be done?
In theory let's say the government uses the stimulus money to build a huge bridge project. The steel company might need to hire a guy or two, the concrete company might need to hire a guy or two, the general contractor can keep a couple people employed.... this is how the government can, at least temporarily, create or save jobs.... but as it turns out, this administration has decided the best way to do it is to add 3 more government workers to sit around and talk about building a bridge, then claim job growth.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509 |
From your link ..... "With the notable exception of conservatives, the independent economists who have produced studies agree that the stimulus has saved or created upwards of 1 million jobs, and that the bill will likely create another million or so jobs in 2010. These numbers are based on a "counterfactual" study that is an estimate subject to some professional disagreement. And within this broad range of expert opinion, Obama chose a number on the high side. The numbers could easily be less than what he suggests. So we rate his claim Half True." 1 million job is a whole lot different than 3 million so far. I like how they don't mention the "liberal" economists as a group. If they are pushing the high end, then why are they included and not singled out as conservatives are? Also, if you look at the government's own site, most of the "Stimulus" money spent so far has gone to tax cuts and social spending. Actually, it's over 2/3 of what has been spent so far that has gone to these 2 areas. I forgot though ...... increasing social spending benefits is "stimulus". 
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,367 |
Quote:
Quote:
Federal govt's main expenditures are Social Security (almost everyone gets), Medicare (which almost everyone over 65+ gets), and Defense (everyone gets some benefit).....which one do you not want or do you want to cut?
question is not specific to arch
Everything has to be out on the table.
Everything.
There need to be across the board budget cuts. Entire layers of bureaucracy need to be stripped away. Entire departments need to be abolished.
Cutting spending by 15% would save us $450 billion per year.
Unfortunately, this isn't enough. We need to collect more taxes. This means that we need to tax everyone. All wage earners need to pay taxes. Everyone. We cannot afford to give away billions in tax credits. We cannot expect just the "rich" to support us.
If our federal budget is $3 trillion, then we need to collect $3.5 - $4 trillion in order to start paying down our debt.
People talk of taking care of the debt when times are good .... but it never happens. Deficit spending during an economic downturn would not be bad if we had a plan for managing it. The problem is that there is never a plan, and deficit spending is the norm.
They could start the spending cuts right here.
The U.S. is expected to spend about $36.7 billion on its foreign aid budget next year.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/...ealthy-nations/
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509 |
Yeah, that could be cut, but probably not eliminated. We still need allies in this world, and, unfortunately, sometimes we have to buy them. In the scheme of things, $36.7 billion is a drop in the bucket. The fact remains that defense and social spending make up 70-80% of the federal budget, and we will never get the budget under control by ignoring the 2 biggest parts. Did you kow that we gave food stamp recipients a raise in the stimulus bill? Yep ... in a period of de-inflation and massive debt, we gave them more dollars. Tell me that makes sense.  Oh well .... I give up. Hopefully the country hangs in there for another 60-70 years, and then I'll be gone and won't have to worry about it any more.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374 |
Everytime I read the news I get the feeling the country is heading toward some serious trouble, I hope I'm wrong.
LET'S GO BROWNS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/OldSixty-Two/new0400001.jpg) [b]WOOF WOOF[b]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
Yeah, that could be cut, but probably not eliminated. We still need allies in this world, and, unfortunately, sometimes we have to buy them. In the scheme of things, $36.7 billion is a drop in the bucket.
The fact remains that defense and social spending make up 70-80% of the federal budget, and we will never get the budget under control by ignoring the 2 biggest parts.
Did you kow that we gave food stamp recipients a raise in the stimulus bill? Yep ... in a period of de-inflation and massive debt, we gave them more dollars. Tell me that makes sense.
Oh well .... I give up. Hopefully the country hangs in there for another 60-70 years, and then I'll be gone and won't have to worry about it any more.
Some might say that's a bad attitude,...
But with a whole LOT less than 60-70 years left ? You damn betcha !
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,367
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,367 |
Quote:
60-70 years
pssst this isn't 1980
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683 |
Discounted stock options can be made available.
It just depends wheter or not it is in your best interest to exercise your option at the time, or at a later date.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288 |
Quote:
Discounted stock options can be made available.
It just depends wheter or not it is in your best interest to exercise your option at the time, or at a later date.
A company CANNOT give ANYONE a discount on stock options.
Not to employees...not to you...not to me. PERIOD.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683 |
You must be talking about ESOPs. ISOPs are generally reserved for the big cheeses.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288 |
Quote:
You must be talking about ESOPs. ISOPs are generally reserved for the big cheeses.
No.
If your employer gives you something of value greater than $25, it is supposed to show on your W2.
While many perks bring value greater than $25 - perks that do not show on your W2 - there is no way to "give" employees stock options nor to give them a "discount".
The misinformation being spewed about by the "hate the evil rich" crowd is incredible. (Not saying you are that guy as we seem to be having a civil debate.)
Anyone who believes that another person made "millions" and paid $0 federal income tax is drinking the kool aid. (Again...not saying you are that person.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Anyone who believes that another person made "millions" and paid $0 federal income tax is drinking the kool aid.
Actually about 1-3% of individuals who make over a million dollars pay zero in taxes.
The percentage is higher for corporations.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509 |
Quote:
Actually about 1-3% of individuals who make over a million dollars pay zero in taxes.
What form of income?
Is it a matter of the source of their income, or deductions that allow them to whittle their taxes down to little or nothing?
Regardless, how would a higher tax rate help in these cases?
This is always what the argument comes back to for me. People throw out this argument that the rich do not pay their fair share ...... that many people making millions pay little or nothing in federal taxes despite the tax rate being 36% ...... yet they assume that raising the tax rate will help.
I fail to see the reasoning behind that thought process.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288 |
Quote:
Quote:
Anyone who believes that another person made "millions" and paid $0 federal income tax is drinking the kool aid.
Actually about 1-3% of individuals who make over a million dollars pay zero in taxes.
The percentage is higher for corporations.
Define the word "make" Phil...and be careful.
Also, let us know how many people - by percentage to US population - are in your smaller sample of 1 -3 %.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Define the word "make" Phil...and be careful.
Earned income.
Quote:
Also, let us know how many people - by percentage to US population - are in your smaller sample of 1 -3 %.
Roughly 31,000 people. That's at 1%
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Quote:
Also, let us know how many people - by percentage to US population - are in your smaller sample of 1 -3 %.
Roughly 31,000 people. That's at 1%
So if 31,000 people are in that 1% of the people that make over a million dollars a year and pay no taxes, then that means that over 3 million people have earned income over a million dollars a year.. are you sure about that?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288 |
Quote:
Quote:
Define the word "make" Phil...and be careful.
Earned income.
Quote:
Also, let us know how many people - by percentage to US population - are in your smaller sample of 1 -3 %.
Roughly 31,000 people. That's at 1%
If they actually pay 0$ federal income tax it is due to many other factors...most likely being other business losses and charitable donations along with other itemized deductions.
With AMT, I doubt they pay $0 federal income taxes with a million or more in EARNED income.
I'd love to see those tax returns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, let us know how many people - by percentage to US population - are in your smaller sample of 1 -3 %.
Roughly 31,000 people. That's at 1%
So if 31,000 people are in that 1% of the people that make over a million dollars a year and pay no taxes, then that means that over 3 million people have earned income over a million dollars a year.. are you sure about that?
Phil fancies himself as an expert on many things. (the origin of the word marriage, for example, or his claim that the u.s. is terrible and rampantly kills innocent civilians, and many other topics, including this one).
But my question to him is 2 fold - can he back up those numbers? And, if so, why shouldn't those people get out of paying federal tax? Hell, 48% of the citizens don't pay federal income tax. And that doesn't include the illegal immigrants.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,803 |
Quote:
Phil fancies himself as an expert on many things.
Kinda like the rest of us?
.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
But my question to him is 2 fold - can he back up those numbers? And, if so, why shouldn't those people get out of paying federal tax? Hell, 48% of the citizens don't pay federal income tax. And that doesn't include the illegal immigrants.
48% gets thrown around a lot. But it isn't accurate.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/federal-taxes-households.cfm
The majority of that 48% still pays payroll tax (SS and Medicare). That is still a federal income tax. So more accurately, 86% pay federal income tax, or 14% pay no federal income tax.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,509 |
What about after child tax credits and EITC credits are worked into the equation?
I bet that 47% is still pretty damn accurate.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
I like how they don't mention the "liberal" economists as a group. If they are pushing the high end, then why are they included and not singled out as conservatives are?
I took that as implied, b/c they say that Obama cherry picks the high numbers. They probably should have been explicit though.
Quote:
Also, if you look at the government's own site, most of the "Stimulus" money spent so far has gone to tax cuts and social spending. Actually, it's over 2/3 of what has been spent so far that has gone to these 2 areas.
I forgot though ...... increasing social spending benefits is "stimulus".
JMO, but in down times, I think it is. Increased social spending is the quickest way to see the money immediately pumped right back into the economy. People who are unemployed or underemployed are the most likely to spend immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
JMO, but in down times, I think it is. Increased social spending is the quickest way to see the money immediately pumped right back into the economy. People who are unemployed or underemployed are the most likely to spend immediately.
While that may have some merit, the un/underemployed are spending money at the grocery store, on housing (rent - mortgage), and on cell phones. That helps to keep food processors, and mcdonalds, the banks or the landlords, and verizon in business.
"Rich" people buy all those same things, as well as cars, boats, atv's, they go out to eat, they go to movies, they go to shows, they travel, they stay in hotels, they invest (which employs people), they hire people to do their lawn, their snow, their painting, their siding, their roofing, they buy stuff that keeps the economy moving, tv's, air conditioners, mattresses, etc....and yet we want to tax them more, so they don't have more spendable income.................which in turn creates more poor people because the employees that work in the fields I mentioned (among hundreds of others) get laid off when the "rich" don't spend.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Tax cuts and jobs
|
|
