• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Census finds record gap between rich and poor

Okay, let me put it this way for you.

My Data: Taxes include all federal, state & local taxes (personal and corporate income, payroll, property, sales, excise,
estate etc.).

Your Data: Federal income taxes.

Get it?

I guess I wasn't too clear.

Yes, and since we're talking about raising or not raising federal income taxes, I don't understand why you keep on including things like local property taxes.
 
Lets put it this way. If there were 100 peole and $100 to share what would this look like.

One person would get $23 the other ninty nine would fight over the rest of the $77. The bottom 20 fight over about $3.

When we have to pay the bills:

That top guy pays a lot. About 23% or $5. The bottom 20, who only have $3 to start with only pay about seven or eight cents. The top guy is still left with $18. Thats more than six times what the bottom 20 started out with.

Nothing about this resembles how an economy works, so I'm not sure what relevance it has.
 
I pretty clearly just acknowledged that they weren't. The point is that your argument is still wrong, as the existence of a free market =/= "stealing sweat equity."
No, you weren't clear. You said, "Substitute that [sweat equity] for "slavery" in my previous post and every point still stands." And now you're trying to weasle out it by saying they aren't the same. So which is it?
 
Last edited:
No, you weren't clear. You said, "Substitute that [sweat equity] for "slavery" in my previous post and every point still stands." And now you're trying to weasle out it by saying they aren't the same. So which is it?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

The things that he was describing are neither slavery nor "stealing sweat equity." My points stand, regardless of which argument he was making.
 
don't hold your breath on TAXING THE RICH, either

Democrats Look To Punt On Tax Cut Debate [UPDATE]

91%---LOL!
Yeah, they're not going to vote on extending the tax cuts for the middle class until after the election. Good, because that is exactly what I hoped they would do. That way the Dems won't need to worry about the election when they vote to extend tax cuts for the middle class and can simply let the tax cuts lapse for the wealthy.
 
Conflating CEO's with the millions of people earning over $250k doesn't help your argument.
It doesn't help your argument to lie about mine, either. I specifically said CEO's and made no mention of those making over $250K.

What are you even talking about?
I was talking about the worth of a man's labor. What are you talking about?

You really, seriously, don't understand the difference between slavery and the free market?
Seriously, can't you follow a discussion?

Yes, every person earning over $250k just FORCED us into that war.
Oh dats right, da poor folks FORCED us into Bush's dirty little war. Yeah, dat's da ticket, blame da poor.

I'm opposed to extending unemployment, so I can just take that out of my tax bill, right? That's not how taxes work.
Well, duh. :roll: Be sure to tell that to the Birchers the next time they talk about wealth distribution, will ya?

Again, why do you keep conflating billionaires who earn their income via capital gains with all people earning over $250k?
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

The average person earning more than $250k pays a much higher percentage of his income in federal tax than the average person earning less.
You are seriously mistaken, because I haven't said a word about people making $250K or more, so it must be you doing all the conflating. Yes, in fact I know it is. The people I'm referring to are in the top 1% and while their average earned income is around $7.4 million and is taxed at 21.4%, which is far less than what you claim people making 60K or even $250K are taxed, and the bulk of their income comes from dividends and capital gains which is taxed at 15%. So in essence, the more money they make the less tax they pay. Oh but heaven forbid you should take my word for it, instead take it from your link from the Tax Foundation....

"...The average income for a tax return in this top 0.1 percent is $7.4 million, while the average amount of income tax paid is $1.6 million, indicating an average effective individual income tax rate of 21.5 percent. This very top income group actually has a lower average effective tax rate than the rest of the top 1 percent of returns because these extremely high-income returns are more likely to have income from capital gains and dividends, which are typically taxed at lower rates. (Note that in the case of capital gains and dividends, in most cases the income has already been taxed once by the corporate income tax, which is not included here.) ...."
The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Now, now, don't worry your little head about that silly ol corporate income tax mentioned above, because most corporations don't hardly pay any tax at all thanks to "corporate welfare" in the form of tax subsidies, tax breaks, write offs, off shore bank accounts and what not. Oh those poor, poor, corporations, <sniff, sniff> the big bad ol government is so mean to them, boo hoo.

No, he was using a technical economic term, something that appears to be wasted on this thread.
Apparently it went over your head too, because unearned income means exactly that, unearned income.

lolllll

If you don't even know what ballpark the estate tax is in, you shouldn't try to talk about what we should do with it.
Uh huh. Well, I know enough to know that you use snarky little insults to hide behind when you don't know wtf you're talking about. And that is certainly the case here and in almost all your other posts as well. Yup.
 
Last edited:
Good, because that is exactly what I hoped they would do.

that is exactly what you hoped they would do?

LOL!

head into the midterm telling americans, hey, we just couldn't get around to extending those cuts which even tax-the-rich obama says must not be raised in times like these?

unfortunately you have jiltin joe lieberman, stiffneck nelson, bye bye evan bayh and the BUDGET CHAIR kent conrad standing between you and your personal druthers upstairs

and folks like joe donnelly, marion berry, allen boyd and bobby bright aren't gonna come around on pelosi's rented carpet

yup, leadership knows exactly what it's doing

some people are simply un-embarrassable, it appears

party on, pollyana, seeya at the polls

and beyond
 
that is exactly what you hoped they would do?

LOL!

head into the midterm telling americans, hey, we just couldn't get around to extending those cuts which even tax-the-rich obama says must not be raised in times like these?

unfortunately you have jiltin joe lieberman, stiffneck nelson, bye bye evan bayh and the BUDGET CHAIR kent conrad standing between you and your personal druthers upstairs

and folks like joe donnelly, marion berry, allen boyd and bobby bright aren't gonna come around on pelosi's rented carpet

yup, leadership knows exactly what it's doing

some people are simply un-embarrassable, it appears

party on, pollyana, seeya at the polls

and beyond
You have a lot to learn about the game of politics, dahlink.
 
tell it to the BUDGET CHAIR
 
It doesn't help your argument to lie about mine, either. I specifically said CEO's and made no mention of those making over $250K.

And given that the rest of us are conducting a discussion in the shadow of a proposed tax increase on those earning over $250k, I'm wondering why you thought that was relevant.

Either way, both the CEO making millions and the person earning $250k pay a greater percentage of their income in fed income tax than the average worker, contrary to the claim in your post.

I was talking about the worth of a man's labor. What are you talking about?

Seriously, can't you follow a discussion?

You're arguing that the wage gap is equivalent to slavery. I asked you for a shred of evidence to support that claim. You've offered nothing.

Oh dats right, da poor folks FORCED us into Bush's dirty little war. Yeah, dat's da ticket, blame da poor.

Where did I say that? I recognize the ridiculousness of claiming that an entire class of people "pushed us into war" based solely on their income bracket. You're the one who claimed that the "elite" as an earning group caused the war.

Well, duh. :roll: Be sure to tell that to the Birchers the next time they talk about wealth distribution, will ya?

Ah, it's the Birchers fault, of course. You couldn't fit Koch or Glenn Beck in there too?

The people I'm referring to are in the top 1% and while their average earned income is around $7.4 million and is taxed at 21.4%, which is far less than what you claim people making 60K or even $250K are taxed

No, it's not. I really don't know how I can be more clear about this.

facts said:
Average federal income tax rates as a percentage of AGI:

Top 1%: 22.45%
Top 1-5%: 20.53%
Top 6-10%: 12.66%
Top 11-25%: 9.43%
Top 26-50%: 7.01%
Bottom 50%: 2.99%

Oh but heaven forbid you should take my word for it, instead take it from your link from the Tax Foundation....

How does anything in that quote contradict anything I've said?

Now, now, don't worry your little head about that silly ol corporate income tax mentioned above, because most corporations don't hardly pay any tax at all thanks to "corporate welfare" in the form of tax subsidies, tax breaks, write offs, off shore bank accounts and what not.

lol

Oh, well if you say so!

Apparently it went over your head too, because unearned income means exactly that, unearned income.

I'm well aware of what "unearned income" is. You don't appear to be, as you thought you proved a point by getting someone to use the term.

Uh huh. Well, I know enough to know that you use snarky little insults to hide behind when you don't know wtf you're talking about. And that is certainly the case here and in almost all your other posts as well. Yup.

You thought that the estate tax had to do with rich people getting free land. I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about?
 
Last edited:
Yes, and since we're talking about raising or not raising federal income taxes, I don't understand why you keep on including things like local property taxes.

This thread is about the gap between the rich and poor not about federal income taxes. Once you include all taxes it paints a very different picture of tax burden in this country. You realize that we have virtually a flat tax extending from 66K on up. Furthermore, a tax cut for those who make 66K to 250K is nothing compared to a taxcut on those making 250K and up. Giving a tax cut to the middle class will actually make the tax system progressive instead of flat. And that makes sense since people in the middle class have considerably less discretionary income than the rich do. Furthermore, all combined, the rich in the country are paying a 30% tax rate, which is considerably low.
 
Last edited:
This thread is about the gap between the rich and poor not about federal income taxes. Once you include all taxes it paints a very different picture of tax burden in this country.

It's not the federal government's job to concern itself with state and local property and sales taxes. The federal income tax is already highly progressive. If state and local taxes are not (which I'm by no means conceding), then that's where you should be directing your concerns.
 
It's not the federal government's job to concern itself with state and local property and sales taxes. The federal income tax is already highly progressive. If state and local taxes are not (which I'm by no means conceding), then that's where you should be directing your concerns.

Why would the federal government not consider the tax burden faced by the population on the local and state level? That doesn't make any sense. The federal tax system, by itself, is progressive, but the actual cumulative tax burden is virtually a flat tax. Also, states and localities are in no way restricted from how they tax, but the federal government is perfectly entitled to take into account how they tax when determining how it should tax.
 
Why would the federal government not consider the tax burden faced by the population on the local and state level? That doesn't make any sense. The federal tax system, by itself, is progressive, but the actual cumulative tax burden is virtually a flat tax. Also, states and localities are in no way restricted from how they tax, but the federal government is perfectly entitled to take into account how they tax when determining how it should tax.

The federal government doesn't consider it 1) because it's not the federal government's job to do so, and 2) because there are 50 different states with 50 different taxation systems and thousands more municipalities with thousands more taxation systems.

Some states have no income tax, others have no sales tax, others have no estate tax and others allow the deduction of federal income taxes. Some municipalities have special income taxes on high earners, others have no sales tax on certain goods, and yet others are notorious for high or low property and school taxes.

Simply put, this wide diversity of tax schemes means that even if the federal government wanted to, it couldn't adjust its tax policies to create a system like you're envisioning.
 
The federal government doesn't consider it 1) because it's not the federal government's job to do so, and 2) because there are 50 different states with 50 different taxation systems and thousands more municipalities with thousands more taxation systems.

Some states have no income tax, others have no sales tax, others have no estate tax and others allow the deduction of federal income taxes. Some municipalities have special income taxes on high earners, others have no sales tax on certain goods, and yet others are notorious for high or low property and school taxes.

Simply put, this wide diversity of tax schemes means that even if the federal government wanted to, it couldn't adjust its tax policies to create a system like you're envisioning.

I'm pretty sure they already do it and have been doing it for a long time. States collect state income tax and property taxes and record taxes of localities. It's easy enough for the federal government to collect that information from the states.
 
Does a $700 billion bailout for failing look like punishment to you? Does earning 400x the average worker look like punishment to you? Oh boo hoo those who make obscene amounts of money should pay the same percentage of their income as does the average worker.

It sounds like nationalization, to me.

You keep talking about people who are lazy and yet you are on this forum all day, everyday, which suggests you are not working. I see on your profile that you claim to be an oil worker. So tell me how do you work as oil worker if you on always playing on this forum?

Two words: drilling moratorium
 
I'm pretty sure they already do it and have been doing it for a long time. States collect state income tax and property taxes and record taxes of localities. It's easy enough for the federal government to collect that information from the states.

I'm not saying that the federal government isn't at some level aware of what each state and municipality does for taxes, I'm saying that federal income tax rates are not set in a fashion that tries to complement state or local taxes. Quite the opposite.
 
And given that the rest of us are conducting a discussion in the shadow of a proposed tax increase on those earning over $250k, I'm wondering why you thought that was relevant.
That's pretty funny considering the rest of us were talking about the widening gap between the rich and the poor until you derailed the thread to talk about taxes.

So why is the middle class getting poorer and the rich getting richer? I suspect it might have something to do with the systemic dismantling of our manufacturing base that sent millions of jobs overseas and the packing of the SCOTUS with activist judges that have consistently ruled in favor of corporate interests over democracy and individual rights. Never was the later more apparent than in their recent ruling Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission which has allowed the Koch's blatant and obvious attempt to steal the upcoming election. And of course, the banks, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan have entrenched themselves in the government and now literally have this country's economy by the balls. We the people don't stand a chance against this corporate oligarchy...see my sig. Viva la French Revolution, history is about to repeat itself again.

The rest of your post was irrelevant to the topic unless you want to explain how tax cuts for the wealthy has only helped to increase the widening gap between the rich and the poor.
 
Last edited:
touted as the perfect example of a toobig saved by his stimulus (why can't obama say the s-word anymore?) caterpillar opens factory in china

Caterpillar to install factory in China: company - Yahoo! News

We have toyota, honda, etc. here, why not Caterpillar in China? They are a growing economy and need heavy equipment. It is a good market. It will bring SOME money to the USA.
Besides, ever figure the postage to ship a piece of heavy equipment from here to there?
 
That's pretty funny considering the rest of us were talking about the widening gap between the rich and the poor until you derailed the thread to talk about taxes.

If you refer back to the Op, you notice that it's author says this is a great time and a good reason to raise taxes--as if raising taxes is going to make poor people rich.

So why is the middle class getting poorer and the rich getting richer? I suspect it might have something to do with the systemic dismantling of our manufacturing base that sent millions of jobs overseas and the packing of the SCOTUS with activist judges that have consistently ruled in favor of corporate interests over democracy and individual rights. Never was the later more apparent than in their recent ruling Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission which has allowed the Koch's blatant and obvious attempt to steal the upcoming election. And of course, the banks, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan have entrenched themselves in the government and now literally have this country's economy by the balls. We the people don't stand a chance against this corporate oligarchy...see my sig. Viva la French Revolution, history is about to repeat itself again.

The rest of your post was irrelevant to the topic unless you want to explain how tax cuts for the wealthy has only helped to increase the widening gap between the rich and the poor.

Are the rich getting richer? Not so sure about that, but I can tell that the government can share some of the blame for making the middle class poorer.

Viva la French Revolution, history is about to repeat itself again.

be careful what you wish for. Obama just hired 10,000 new IRS agents to hound small businesses and middle class folks about their taxes.
 
The census always finds gaps between the "rich" and "poor". What the census' trends don't tell you is that the "poor" don't stay poor. Over the course of their lives people move from one income bracket to the next in just a few short years as people's skill set, education level, experience level, etc. increases.

I suspect if you looked, the census will also tell you that Hispanic households make more than black households without ever explaining that Hispanic households have more people (meaning more income streams) than do black households but that blacks make more per capita than Hispanics.

The devil is in the details but such statistics give politicians--ecspecially liberals--something to rail against.

Anybody else notice this is coming out right at election time?

 
If you refer back to the Op, you notice that it's author says this is a great time and a good reason to raise taxes--as if raising taxes is going to make poor people rich.



Are the rich getting richer? Not so sure about that, but I can tell that the government can share some of the blame for making the middle class poorer.



be careful what you wish for. Obama just hired 10,000 new IRS agents to hound small businesses and middle class folks about their taxes.

To hound, or to enforce the law? I guess it depends on where you stand with IRS laws. If you are a tax cheat, you might be disposed to use the word hound....
 
The census always finds gaps between the "rich" and "poor". What the census' trends don't tell you is that the "poor" don't stay poor. Over the course of their lives people move from one income bracket to the next in just a few short years as people's skill set, education level, experience level, etc. increases.

I suspect if you looked, the census will also tell you that Hispanic households make more than black households without ever explaining that Hispanic households have more people (meaning more income streams) than do black households but that blacks make more per capita than Hispanics.

The devil is in the details but such statistics give politicians--ecspecially liberals--something to rail against.

Anybody else notice this is coming out right at election time?

I think it has more to do with the census results just coming out that show the middle class is getting poorer than it does the election. So you are probably right about people moving from one income bracket to another, only now instead of moving up a bracket, they are moving down.

The census also shows that the income of naturalized citizens, particularly Asians is going up, while the average income for both native born whites and blacks is going down. I suspect that has a lot to do with the Asians placing a high emphasis on education for their children and their work ethics.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom