Owning a $40m home is disgusting...

Most of the poorer who own shares hold them in 401ks that don't pay taxes until they are withdrawn, then they pay at the income tax rate (up to 35%) instead of the special low privileged 15% tax rate guys like Romney get to pay.

People like you are selfish, ignorant, greedy, and don't care about who gets hurt as long as those evil poor bastards get less and less of the pie so the richest get more and more, because more is never enough for folks like you. You selfish greedy conservatives bastards don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about anyone else you are only interested in screwing other people who have less than you.

Money get back
I'm alright, Jack, keep your hands off my stack.
Money it's a hit
Don't give me that do goody good bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

 

When you siphon about $1.3 trillion a year in income from the middle classes, the great engine of spending, to the 1%, as we have effectively done of the past 30 years, it should be no surprise that this recovery, like the one before it and the one before it, is slow and sluggish. The Middle classes don't have the money to spend and the 1% stick it in the offshore accounts where it does nothing useful

 

In what world is 40% the majority?

You made a claim, so provide evidence for that claim. Show how the "1%" owns a majority of shares in publicly traded companies.

 

That's just the 1%.

I didn't claim the 1% owns the majority. Straw man.

 

Then provide evidence that the majority of shares are owned by "the richest". And define "the richest" while you're at it.

 

I cited the data earlier in the thread.

Here's another source:

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 35% of all privately held stock, 64.4% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top ten percent have 81% to 94% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and almost 80% of non-home real estate.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

 

When a house is built, regardless of the price tag, the following industries get a cut of the job:

Architect
Engineer
Plumbing
Electrical
Supply house
Lumber yard
Flooring
Paint
Cabinetry
Masonry
Excavating
Township for permits
Appliances
Plumbing fixtures
Carpentry
Finish carpentry
Landscaping
Paving
Finish concrete work
Siding
Roofing
Windows
Doors
HVAC

And the list goes on.

How horrible that the 'rich man' supports all these industries....

 

Only 401Ks make you pay the income tax rate and even then you can role it over into an IRA to put off paying taxes. You only pay income tax rates on mutual funds and other investments held for less than a year. If it is over a year then EVERYONE gets the special rate and most retirees and workers in middle America aren't shuffling their stocks around every month. For them they maybe will look at their quarterly reports at best. And in fact if you are a low income investor then you don't pay ANY tax on it so this idea that the rich get a deal that poor people don't is just hogwash. Anyone who holds onto their stocks longer than a year is taxed at the same rate no matter what.......unless you are on the low end of the income ladder in which case you aren't taxed. Your jealous desire to screw the rich and jack up the capital gains rate will end up hurting middle income people far more than the rich.

 

Every everyone got the same level of proportionate income, you'd have a point about the special low 15% max tax rate guys like Romney get. But the truth is few in the middle classes have a significant portion of their income from investments, while for the ubers it is a significant or majority portion, or in the case of the Mitts, almost all.

Which is why Mitt, worth 1/4 billion dollars, pays a lower tax rate than the typical median income family.

Only in America.

 

Then why not change it so that everyone pays the 15% rate (income and capital gains rate) and close the loopholes. I do not get this incessant desire that liberals have to pick and choose winners and "screw the rich". Alot of those rich people (including Romney) have given far more to charitable organizations in a single year then you are I will do in our entire lifetimes. Instead of shooting some people down how about raising everyone up?

 

"stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity"

We were talking about stocks only, including those held in mutual funds and pensions. Nobody doubts that rich people own the majority of trust funds.

 

You might want to clarify who you are replying to.

 

80.8% of all privately held stock. It was in the data in the link I cited.

This is a losing proposition for you.

- - - Updated - - -

Because then we have even bigger deficits.

Who cares how much they give to charities? If the top 1% didn't have 40% of the wealth maybe others could afford to give more to charities.

 

Indeed, you're correct and I was wrong. Thank you for sourcing your claim.

 

If you lower the taxes to 15% across the board then that would accomplish the same thing. Once again you are simply acting jealous and demanding that rich people have to pay a higher percentage than everyone else. That is the very definition of selfish. It is literally no different that little Timmy throwing a tantrum and demanding Bobby give him some of his toys because little Bobby got more toys for Christmas. That is what people like you remind me of........little whiny kids who didn't get their way and throw hissy fits.

We have deficits because of spending not our tax policy. We went through the 80s, 90s and 2000s with similar tax rates with only minor fluctuations of a couple of percentage points and the times that we had deficits were when we went on spending sprees like Reagan beating the Soviets and Obama's stimulus and the times we had surpluses were when spending was kept in check like Clinton and the Republicans did in the 90s. Tax rates have a very minor impact compared to spending policies.

 

If we lowered the tax rate to 15% we'd double the deficit.

Once again you are simply acting greedy and demanding that rich people pay a lower percentage than everyone else. That is the very definition of greed. It is literally no different that little Richie Rich throwing a tantrum and refusing to share his toys with others who don't have any. hat is what people like you remind me of........little spoiled kids who didn't get their way and throw hissy fits.

We have deficits because of tax policy. We cut cut spending to the lowest proportionate level over the past 6 decades and we'd still have a deficit. We went through 90s with higher tax rates and had a surplus budget. The times that we had deficits were when we went on tax cutting sprees like Reagan and Bush and Obama's stimulus. The times we had surpluses were when tax collections were proportionately $750 billion more than the Govt is collecting now. Taxes have just as much an impact compared to spending policies.

They only reason you don't acknowledge the trillions that tax cuts have put us into debt is because you don't want to sacrifice for the good of the country to pay more to balance the budget.

The pass the buck generation.

 

Capital gains IS NOT JUST PAID BY RICH PEOPLE. For cheese sake how can anyone be so obtuse. Have you ever actually done any investment at all, or sold a home. EVERYONE pays capital gains EXCEPT lower income people who are in fact excempt from it. The system is rigged in favor of poor people if anything.

Once again our tax rates have not changed that much since the 1980s, the spending and the economy are what drives federal revenue. The revenue in 1988 was twice that of 1981 AFTER tax rates were reduced. The only reason we had a deficit in the 80s was because of the massive increase in spending on the military. There is no reason we can't move to a flat tax. There is a reason that the more economics courses you take people become more conservative on fiscal matters. Education is a dangerous thing for the liberal mind.

 

So what is the word for those who demand people better off than themselves pay a higher percentage than everyone else?

 

Reasonable.

 

I was thinking hypocritical fit the bill a little better.

 

As the data I've posted conclusively proves, the richest derive a far, far higher proportion of their income from investments. They benefit far more than the middle classes, who typically derive a very small percent of their income from investments. The richest benefit from the special low tax rates, the middle class very little if at all.

It is why an uber rich guy like Romney pays a lower tax rate than the typical median income family.

Which is complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

You want some education? Then learn about the effects of inflation and the facts about the data. Here's a lesson.

Revenues in 1988 were not twice that after 1981, they were up 75% from 1980. The biggest increase was from 1980 to 1981, before Reagan's tax cuts took effect. From 1981, they were up barely over half by 1988.

Year - Revenues
1980 517.1
1981 599.3
1982 617.8
1983 600.6
1984 666.5
1985 734.1
1986 769.2
1987 854.4
1988 909.3

Source: CBO.gov

But even that increase was largely because of inflation. Also, Reagan raised taxes 11 times though most were not that major.

Here are the inflation adjusted figures:

Reagan
1980 1197.6
1988 1421.1
% growth revenues: +18.6%

Clinton
1992 1467.5
2000 2310.0
% growth revenues: +57.4%

Bush
2000 2310.0
2008 2286.8
% growth revenues: -1.0%


Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Adjusted for inflation, we see an accurate picture. Revenues under Reagan grew only 18%. During the same period of time, after Clinton's tax increase, revenues grew by a whopping 57% real. Bush shows the real failure of "supply side" theory. His tax cuts were supposed to boost the economy and promote superior revenue growth. Instead, revenues didn't even keep up with inflation.

And it is not simply a function of the economy. Both Reagan and Clinton (contrary to conservative predictions) had strong economies. Bush (contrary to conservative predictions) had a subpar economic performance, but still had growth.

Regardless of the growth, when we compare growth in revenues with growth in the economy, we can see the fallacy of your claim that the economy drives revenues. In both the case of tax cutting Reagan and Bush, revenues failed to keep up with the economy. In the case of tax increasing Clinton, revenue growth far surpassed economic growth:

Actual figures.

Reagan
Year - GDP
1980 2,789.5
1988 5,103.8
% Chng: 83.0%

Year - Revenues
1980 517.1
1988 909.3
% Chng: 75.8%


Clinton
year - GDP
1992 6,337.7
2000 9,817.0
% Chng: 54.9%

Year - Revenues
1992 1091.3
2000 2025.2
% Chng: 85.6%


Bush

Year – GDP
2000 9,817.0
2008 14,264.6
% Chng: 45.3%

Year – Revenues
2000 2025.2
2008 2523.6
% Chng: 24.6%

Sources: Revenues - CBO.gov; GDP - BEA.gov.

The data clearly shows the significant effect tax policy has had on revenues.

Consider yourself educated.

 

Construction pay pretty damn good for people who know what they are doing and have little to no formal post secondary education. 15-30 bucks an hour? Yes some get min wage but they will either learn the trade, ship out or are so sorry all they will ever do is earn min wage.

 

How is it possibly hypocritical?

 

A flat tax is a great idea -- if your goal is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, which I suspect is yours.

As a principle of fairness, however, it sucks.

A 20% tax on a family making $20,000 means they do without basic necessities.

A 40% tax on a family making $20,000,000 means they may have to get a smaller megayacht.

A flat tax places a far more onerous burden on the poor because it taxes money they need for necessities while a progress tax taxes money the richest have for luxuries.

But if you want to make the rich richer and poorer, great idea. We've been moving to a flatter overall tax system over the past 30 years. During which time we've seen:

 

Certainly economic growth has an effect. But the data shows that revenues grew far faster GDP under Clinton, and far slower than GDP under Reagan and especially Bush.

If the economy drove revenues and tax policy had no effect, you'd see revenue growth being equivalent to economic growth.

What are those sources supposed to demonstrate?

The data does not correlate that with rates that way at all.

We had best growth in the 50s and 60s with top rates in the 70 to 91% range.

We had the worst periods of growth in 1986-1993, when the rate 28-31%, and 2001-2011, when the top rate was 35% (or lower, because of the stimulus tax cuts).

We had better growth from 82-87 (top rate 50%) and 93-2000 (top rate 40%).

We've actually had better growth with more progressive tax structures. Completely opposite of what conservatives claim.

What a pile of crap. And you talk about liberals needing to be educated. Take a course in finance or economics and educate yourself.

Jeez.

It shows tax rates.

Here's inflation:

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

Inflation was up 30% from 1980-85. Which explains a big part of why revenues look strong under Reagan. It was inflation inflated incomes.

Sorry, but I'm not the one making silly comments like "inflation doesn't affect revenues."

Typical conservative. Good at personal insults, ignorant of fact and knowledge. Piles on more insults the more his ignorance is demonstrated.

Then it is not a true flat tax by definition, because you are effectively lowering the tax rate on lower incomes. Why do you suppose people who promote a "flat tax" think they need to do that?