which bit of top 0.9% and top 0.1% is is that you have problems comprehending on that graph?
if your nickname is any indication youre 17 and iirc youre still in school so either daddy is paying you a whole lot of undeserved money or youre not in that class
and if you had any ability to comprehend graphs you would be able to see that youd have to make over 600k a year to get any tax increase under obamas proposal
I'm just saying that taxing the hell out of the wealthy isn't going to be helpful for the economy. It never has been. According to the IRS, the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.54% of the taxes. The top 25% pay 83.88%. And the top 1% of wage earners pay 34.27%.
If taxes are raised on the wealthy, they just put more of their money in tax-free investments and the government actually gets less revenue. The purpose of tax cuts is to allow entrepreneurs to have more money so they can invest it in products and services. That provides jobs and jobs put money in the pockets of those less wealthy.
High taxes in the US will cause the wealthy (that greedy, despised .1%) to outsource jobs overseas and cause unemployment here at home.
WOW, have you ever studied economics? (edit: less than ten years ago)
Do you really think a company would ever want to employ in the US and have to deal with Obama's insane tax hike instead of hiring cheap overseas labor?
I must say, flymike, you do seem blindingly ignorant of a few core matters, both social an economic. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, it seems.
Why would income tax increases for the highest earners have any effect on the decision to use cheaper foreign labour? Your assumption makes no sense.
And why would you care about american companies using cheap foreign labour? If you're happy to give more money to the petit-bourgeois in the belief that the private sector can sort the economy out on its own, then doesn't it follow that the only reason they're not using american labour is because american labourers have priced themselves out of the market?
American peasants need to start competing with those Asians. That's how capitalism works, right?
that doesn't make much sense to me. You have to simplify your pseudo-intellectual talk, my poorly funded american education hasn't prepared me for what you're trying to say.
I don't disagree with what Kev says, and I 100% understand his post. FTR, both Kev and I have lived and worked in the US, and we're neither of us ignorant about the subject of the US in the socio-economic sense.
You stated that you couldn't understand Kev's post, after I'd posted that you didn't understand the topic. That was my Q.E.D.
Kev if you're saying that US labor is too expensive, please remember that it is the liberals who raise the minimum wage every year. The welfare state makes it possible for a person in the lower classes in the US to get money from me for free. They feel entitled to it, so why would they work a boring labor job? In a way you're right the problem is in the "peasants"
You told us that an income tax increase on the richest people in america will lead directly to increased unemployment for the poorest people in america. I asked why. Shall I ask again?
You suggested that by reducing the income tax paid by business owners, this wealth would in some way filter down to the poorest members of society.
History suggests otherwise. The poorest members of society are always growing poorer in comparison to the richest members of society. So where's the support for your conjecture?
You also implied this wealth would come in the form of plentiful employment, by telling us that increasing taxes on the income of employers would make foreign labour more attractive. This makes even less sense. If tax rates on the labour of the lower classes remain unchanged, why would the desirability of cheaper foreign labour change?
One other aspect you haven't considered is that income tax rates on business owners in most countries typically aren't representative of the tax they actually pay. When you own a business there are creative tax strategies that can be employed to protect profits. Often legally. This is something the working classes typically can't exploit, unless they have remarkably complicated business expenses to account for.
I was making the point that your faith in and support for free market economics are not easily reconciled with your apparent concerns about domestic unemployment.
Ah yes the old argument. Here goes:
In the 1920's a Rich man drove a car while the poor man walked. That was a big difference. Today, the rich man still drives, and so does the poor man, the only difference is the poor man has a second-hand CRX compared to the rich man's porsche. Thats not such a big difference.
In the 1980's only wealthy wall street yuppies had cell phones. Today almost everyone has a cell phone, from the richest men the the poorest men. How can you say the poor get poorer? Things get better and better for the lower class. In 1900, rich people lived to be 60, poor men to 45 years old. There was a 15 year gap. Today, a rich man could live to 80 while a poor man dies on average at about 76. The gap got a lot smaller thanks to modern medicine becoming available to more people.
The lower classes have preferential treatment at colleges such as Stanford University, which i live a few miles from. They don't deny accepting people with ethnic backgrounds or who don't have the money to attend even when they have lower test scores and fewer meaningful extracurriculars than their white counterparts. Who is more deserving?
Most small businesses in my area file profit under personal income to benefit from the bush tax cuts. I don't even know what we're going to have to do if Obama wins. Its going to be much harder for my family to keep as much money as we are now.
how is any of these numbers relevant without including the percentage of wages earned by these groups?
why would they invest any of their money into non tax free investments? so once you give them a tax cut they lose their ability to use a calculator?
yes in the third world... the money is rather limited though
and what would keep them from doing it when the taxes are lower?
hint: no matter how much you lower taxes producing in china will always be cheaper and while im a stron believer in the dilbert principle ceos arent that incompetent to not go to china
My Dad works very very hard (i.e. overwork into the physical harm zone) and pulls in about £30k ish. My Mum works slightly less, but is rubbish with money and pulls in about £10-£11k. That creates an income of around £41k + the small amount my Dad earns from his IT business (~£4k ish). Even if I add my income (~£4k ish) you still don't get even half of the £125k...
And you really really don't have a clue Flymike...
What I meant was, you sound like the Republican speach writer. You pick and choose things about his tax plan and leave out a whole bunch of stuff in between. Tax breaks for those who increase their employee count, tax breaks for those who keep jobs here in the states etc etc.
I think the problem here is you watch to much of the Republican News Network (FOX). Maybe if you would watch a channel that was a little less bias (like, I dont know...the cartoon network), you too, would see the good things about his plan.
And Palin's pitbull remark went something like "the diffrence between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick". Obama said that you cant put lipstick on a pig and make it pretty...and boy is he right, because Palin is a airhead!!!! She couldnt even name a supreme court case and this bitch wants to possibly become Commander and Chief...
i dunno i guess we'll find out. I think obama will win. I guess the lower classes will be happy for even more welfare while the wealthy fund it. then we'll have a republican president and the cycle continues
