Top 10% pay 73% of Federal Taxes, how much more should they pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Where do people go when they challenge the facts, then the facts are presented?

2. Should there be free representation with no taxes? That is just voting.

3. Should there be full participation in the endless and ever increasing stream of benefits with no as wimpy boy calls it "skin in the game?"

I have taken the liberty of numbering your points to try to introduce some structure into your ramblings.

1. What on earth are you talking about? Are you drunk? Or mad?

2. As explained above, social security taxes, sales taxes etc. are regressive, i.e. the poor pay a higher proportion of their income than the rich. You cannot take one tax in isolation and look at its incidence. I take it from your comment though that you are in favor of full voting rights for the District?

3. No, there shouldn't. I have no idea who wimpy boy is. But the fact is, the proportion of their income that the richest 10 or 1 percent of the population have been paying in taxes has declined dramatically in recent years. As a result of corporate welfare and loopholes many large corporations now also pay next to nothing in taxes.
So this idea that benefits for the poor are increasing at the expense of the rich is total bullshit.

So why don't you look up some facts before posting your gnomic wisdom, based on poorly remembered factoids from Fox News?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0

AP factoids for you and only you

skin in the game, Obama

ZERO Federal Income Tax for 47%, free ride and line up at the trough

[Anonymous]

OP - can you try to string a coherent sentence together, please?

Who was it who said you should never argue with idiots, because they will drag you down to their level, where they have the home-team advantage...

[Anonymous]

chatter, chatter, nonresponsive

[Anonymous]

OP, how convenient of you to not mention in the fact that the top 1% owns about 35% of all privately held wealth, whereas the bottom 80% possesses only 15%.

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

[Anonymous]

Oh I get it now! You want to deny citizenship to the people who pay "0" federal income tax!
Maybe offer them citizenship through service, like in Starship Trooper!
It would be hard, what do you do about SSS, gas taxes, the 3 years who earn no money? I guess you could let people buy there way out of service and prorate the taxes paid.
How long should the term be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, how convenient of you to not mention in the fact that the top 1% owns about 35% of all privately held wealth, whereas the bottom 80% possesses only 15%.

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

and how convenient it is of you to change the subject when you can not deal with the subject. Pass the weed please.

Do you like 47% who pay nothing?

Suggestion: start your own thread if you want to discuss another subject, otherwise it appears that you are just try to be disruptive or have no worthy response

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh I get it now! You want to deny citizenship to the people who pay "0" federal income tax!
Maybe offer them citizenship through service, like in Starship Trooper!
It would be hard, what do you do about SSS, gas taxes, the 3 years who earn no money? I guess you could let people buy there way out of service and prorate the taxes paid.
How long should the term be?

PP
I get it too. If you have no response, just babble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, how convenient of you to not mention in the fact that the top 1% owns about 35% of all privately held wealth, whereas the bottom 80% possesses only 15%.

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

and how convenient it is of you to change the subject when you can not deal with the subject. Pass the weed please.

Do you like 47% who pay nothing?

Suggestion: start your own thread if you want to discuss another subject, otherwise it appears that you are just try to be disruptive or have no worthy response

If you don't see the relevance, you are stupid. But, I would have surmised as such from the OP.

[Anonymous]

Um, if you are a family of four making $50,000 in this area of the country (per the article link) you are not in good shape. If they pay no taxes, so be it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, how convenient of you to not mention in the fact that the top 1% owns about 35% of all privately held wealth, whereas the bottom 80% possesses only 15%.

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

and how convenient it is of you to change the subject when you can not deal with the subject. Pass the weed please.

Do you like 47% who pay nothing?

Suggestion: start your own thread if you want to discuss another subject, otherwise it appears that you are just try to be disruptive or have no worthy response

If you don't see the relevance, you are stupid. But, I would have surmised as such from the OP.

Please, you are really hurting my feelings by calling me stupid.

Suggestion again: OK, in the interest of assisting those who need it, why don't you start a thread like - How much of the wealthy's assets should we seize? You could throw in why, but I want you to be a little creative on your own. Pass the weed please.

[Anonymous]

What's your point? What should happen to the "47"? Pass the weed, it must be good but you are not letting anyone else have any!
What about the contractors working on the deathstar when it was blown up? should their families get survivors benefits?

[Anonymous]

OK, lets wander:

TIM GEITNER

How did he escape the most intense and thorough vetting in the history of this country?

What do you estimate to be his net worth, what is his income?

Did he pay any penalties and interest?

Did he move to the front of the waiver line like those getting special treatment on the OH SO SACRED health care legislation and get a full pass in the dark of night?

Where was the outcry for one of your own TAX CHEATS who could not muster loopholes but was and is just a TAX CHEAT.

He really helps the brand!

[Anonymous]

I heard on fox, the reason we invade Iraq was Saddam did not paid taxes. Glad we got that taken care of!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard on fox, the reason we invade Iraq was Saddam did not paid taxes. Glad we got that taken care of!

Good babble. Pass the weed please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good babble. Pass the weed please.

What's up with the person who keeps posting "pass the weed" in response to every single post? Is this supposed to constitute some kind of coherent response?