Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,109 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...DeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDY2hhcnRzaG93c2xv


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110316...kaW9uX21vc3RfcG9wdWxhcgRzbGsDaW5jb21ldGF4Y2hh




What to make of all those swirling lines? The chart shows how tax burdens for different income levels have fluctuated over the last century, adjusted for inflation. Blue areas represent a historically low tax burden for a specific income level, while red areas represent a historically high burden.

So in a nutshell, the chart shows that until around 1940, tax burdens were low for everyone, in historical terms. Then they rose sharply for everyone until about 1970. At that point, the rich and poor began to diverge. Those making around $10,000 to around $50,000 per year enjoyed a comparatively low-tax period in the 70s, but by the early 80s they were taxed slightly higher than the historical average. In the 2000s, their tax rate came back down a bit. By contrast, those making more than roughly $200,000 a year saw a sharp decrease in their tax burden starting in the 80s. That trend has continued to this day.

It's clear, then, that across the board, today's tax rates are low by historical standards--and for the rich they're very low. If the bottom of the chart showed more red and less blue, our deficit problem would be a lot more manageable.

The chart also has implications for another topic we've written about here before--wealth and income inequality. As you can see, no one's taxes today are particularly high by historical standards, but those making $1 million or more per year--that is, roughly the top 1 percent--enjoy the lowest burden, relative to past rates.

At a time when a horde of stats indicates that the gap between rich and poor has widened into chasm--and when Congress and the White House are set to argue again later this year about whether to permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich--it's well worth keeping this bigger picture in mind




--------------------------------------------------


COMMENTARY | Solving our national debt problem might be more of an income dilemma and less about a debt problem. A recent chart compiled from IRS and Tax Foundation data suggests the rich have been paying fewer taxes as compared to the middle class for over 20 years.

Stephen Von Worley's chart adjusts for 2011 inflation and includes income tax statistics from the 1920s through the present day. Darker shaded areas of the chart bespeak a time when the relative tax burden reached historic levels--blue is a low level, red is a high level.

No one class of citizen has an overly high burden of paying income taxes in 2011. But overall, Americans making $1 million or more are shouldering less of a tax burden than before. When the government has been deficit spending at record levels, it's time to increase taxes.

When World War II was going on, millions of citizens were convinced paying taxes was patriotic in order to defeat Hitler and Japan. Now, paying down the debt is anything but patriotic. Groups such as the Tea Party "patriots" are saying keeping even more of our money is in line with American ideals.

Another chart compiled by the University of California at Santa Cruz is equally as disturbing for the middle and lower classes. The top one percent of households in the United States owned nearly 35 percent of the wealth in the United States. The next 19 percent (managerial and professional types) own only 50 percent of the wealth in America. The bottom 80 percent (i.e. hourly wage earners and impoverished) have access to just 15 percent of available money in 2007.

Combining the two sets of date reveals a stark contrast. The rich are still getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer. Republicans don't seem to understand or don't seem to care what the statistics are saying.

The George W. Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy didn't make sense at all. The new chart shows those making between $10,000 and $200,000 have more of the tax burden even though they don't own a vast majority of wealth.

Republicans demanded to keep the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans despite President Obama's objections. The GOP was wrong, plain and simple. Paying income taxes if you're wealthy isn't punishing anyone for being rich. Paying taxes if you're rich isn't socialism. It is simply a way of life in America.

Republicans only seem to care about the wealthiest Americans who only reward themselves for hard work. Democrats want to help the poor get off their feet with a combination of more money for education, health care and welfare programs.

When Ben Franklin wrote to a friend in France, he explained "there are only two certainties in America--death and taxes." In today's world the exception is for the rich as far as paying income taxes"



Keep drinking the coolaid and buying the stories about tax cuts needed to expand, hire peep and pay for bennies for new employees.
:thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Jealousy and envy... are consumptive bitches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
LMFAO !!! :rolling:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
I feel sorry for anyone who simply can't enjoy life because someone else has it better than they do. I'm not rich. I wish I was, and I envy those who are. How's that for honesty? But I'm happy to be healthy and able to work. :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,200 Posts
I feel sorry for anyone who simply can't enjoy life because someone else has it better than they do. I'm not rich. I wish I was, and I envy those who are. How's that for honesty? But I'm happy to be healthy and able to work. :cheers:
:agree:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
I read the article, and even though the words attempt to communicate outrage for the concentration of wealth, the graphs and charts actually show very little change in the status of the very rich and the rest of us since the 1920's. Yes you can pick a point here and there and try to show some outrageous change, but overall, it simply isn't there. The top 1% has always owned 30-40% of everything and they have always paid 30%+ of the taxes. These writers definitely have a boner over beating up the rich, but, as academic as their work sounds, it's crystal clear from their data that this country has about the same economic divisions it has always had.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,241 Posts
I get it. It is OK to insult, demean, put down, and attack those who work their 40 hours or more per week and are not rich. You call them lazy, unmotivated, mooches, stupid, etc. But point out that the rich are getting phenominally more rich working the same 40 per week and this is bad?

What would the rich do if there were not restaurant cooks or fuel delivery trucks, or car salesmen, or road workers, or cops, or teachers, or jailers? Dead. That's where. But go ahead. Let the rich have their way. Let them keep manipulating the system to get favorable treatment while they spit in the face of the workers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
No, -no you don't get it. Not all of them... just some of them. Is Soros not rich ? Do we not complain of his actions ? Did we not hoist "Joe the plumber" to workingman hero status ?

No... the difference between me and you... is that I do not deny that there are people in the world that are less caring then others. Regardless of their ideology.
We do it understanding that there are good one and bad ones. You, do it because you are consumed with jealousy and hate for the rich.

What would the rich do if there were not restaurant cooks or fuel delivery trucks, or car salesmen, or road workers, or cops, or teachers, or jailers? Dead. That's where. But go ahead.
What would they do without the rich ?

Let the rich have their way. Let them keep manipulating the system to get favorable treatment while they spit in the face of the workers.
This is non conducive to business. That's why you don't see this happen.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top