Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 72

Thread: In 12 Years, Income For Richest 400 Americans Quadruples, Tax Rate Nearly Halvesl

  1. #21
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,083
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4005948]Let me get this straight. I have tons of money I give a bunch of it to the govenment who takes their cut and passes a reduced amount to everyone else. With that reduced amount they buy stuff I sell. I pay my, employees, my shareholders, the bank and the government a portion of the profits and I make more money.

    Sounds like a plan.[/QUOTE]

    I dunno. Maybe our next Republican Pres should do an experiment.

    He should make tax refunds illegal and they see how much 1Q profits for large corporations drop.

    I don't make much sense...but it would be a pretty cool experiment, wouldn't it.

    Or better yet...they should defund all foodstamp programs for 6 mos and see if there is a subsequent rise in shoplifting and then we can see if the cost of incarceration for the offenders is more or less than the foodstamps.

    I nominate Joe Arpiao to do that :P

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,727
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4005821]"without redistribution, one generation's successful individuals would become the next generation's embedded caste, hoarding the wealth they had accumulated." -Patrick Diamond and Anthony Giddens[/QUOTE]

    you made my head explode. even if that's true, what's wrong with that?

    Sooner or later, we're bound to see some "social justice" bull****, right?

  3. #23
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,727
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4005979]
    I don't make much sense.[/QUOTE]

    That's part of your charm. :D

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=quantum;4006053]you made my head explode. even if that's true, what's wrong with that?

    Sooner or later, we're bound to see some "social justice" bull****, right?[/QUOTE]

    there's nothing wrong with it if you want to live in England

    over there you don't even buy land most of the time. the duke of earl or whatever deigns to grant a 99 year lease. Cause his family has owned the land for centuries.

  5. #25
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4005821]"without redistribution, one generation's successful individuals would become the next generation's embedded caste, hoarding the wealth they had accumulated." -Patrick Diamond and Anthony Giddens[/QUOTE]

    Lets see....

    Beyond New Labour: The Future of Social Democracy in Britain (ed. with Roger Liddle, Politico's, 2009)
    Social Justice in the Global Age (ed. with Olaf Cramme, Polity Press, 2009)
    Public Matters: How to Revive Britainís Public Realm (Politico's, 2007)
    The Progressive Agenda: Revitalising Public Service Reform (ed. SOLACE Foundation, 2007)
    The North East in the Global Age (University of Northumbria/NEEF 2007)
    Global Europe, Social Europe (ed. with Anthony Giddens and Roger Liddle, Polity Press, 2006)
    Tackling Worklessness in the North East (University of Northumbria/NEEF, 2006)
    Conundrums of Reform (BBC/Policy Network, 2006)
    The Hampton Court Agenda: The Future of the European Social Model (ed. Policy Network, 2006)
    Equality Now: The Future of Revisionism (Fabian Society, 2005)
    The New Egalitarianism (ed. with Anthony Giddens, Polity Press, 2005)
    New Labourís Old Roots: Labourís Revisionist Thinkers 1931-97 (Imprint Academic, 2004)
    Family Fortunes: The New Politics of Childhood (ed. with Meg Munn, Fabian Society, 2004)
    Rethinking Social Democracy (ed. with Matt Browne, Policy Network, 2003)
    Where Next for Social Democracy? (ed. Policy Network, 2003)
    Must Labour Choose? (ed. Progress, 1999)

    Lota nice descriptive titles in there. Did a wee check on your quote makers. Quite a pair of Socialists there Bit, no suprises Comrade Bit would quote guys with such a similar mindset.

    [quote]over there you don't even buy land most of the time. the duke of earl or whatever deigns to grant a 99 year lease. Cause his family has owned the land for centuries.[/QUOTE]

    Dah, Comrade. Must better that Mother State provide us all with our equal plots and equivalent mules with which to work it. Hail the Mother State! Down with Capitalist PigDogs! Their wealth belongs to the people! Works of the world rise, and unite!

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4006104]Lota nice descriptive titles in there. Did a wee check on your quote makers. Quite a pair of Socialists there Bit, no suprises Comrade Bit would quote guys with such a similar mindset.



    Dah, Comrade. Must better that Mother State provide us all with our equal plots and equivalent mules with which to work it. Hail the Mother State! Down with Capitalist PigDogs! Their wealth belongs to the people! Works of the world rise, and unite![/QUOTE]

    this comes as no surprise but i was aware that quote came from "The New Egalitarianism" before I posted it.

    so in a nutshell attack the source ignore the quote. that's a foxnews trick.

    here's another quote, let's see how you turn bull Moose party hero Teddy Roosevelt into Leonid Breshnev

    [quote]
    No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar's worth of service rendered ó not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. [b]Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective ó a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.[/b]

    Teddy Roosevelt, The New Nationalism (1910)

    Speech at Osawatomie, Kansas (31 August 1910), published in The New Nationalism (1910)
    [/quote]

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4006115]this comes as no surprise but i was aware that quote came from "The New Egalitarianism" before I posted it. [/QUOTE]

    I'm sure you did Comrade. Probably a prized place on your bookshelf....

    By the way, when your entire post IS "the source", it's not inappropriate to point out that source is a die-hard Social Welfare Statist/Socialist, and is obviously arguing from deep within that ideology.

    If I quote Hitler, you going to tell me you'll deal honestly with the material of the quote, and not decry the source? Give me a break, Comrade.
    :rolleyes:

    And for the record, the Roosevelt quote is utter trash, dumb as the day is long. Just cause he shares the name of the U.S.'s favorite Socialist, does not mean he was brilliant.

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    Ahhh the old Politcal Board is back. Endless name-calling and immaturity disguised as political debate.

    Gotta luv it :rolleyes:

  9. #29
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,083
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4006115]this comes as no surprise but i was aware that quote came from "The New Egalitarianism" before I posted it.

    so in a nutshell attack the source ignore the quote. that's a foxnews trick.

    here's another quote, let's see how you turn bull Moose party hero Teddy Roosevelt into Leonid Breshnev[/QUOTE]

    Here's one from Jefferson:

    [QUOTE]another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise[/QUOTE]

    [IMG]http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu190/PlumberKhan/thomas_jefferson.jpg[/IMG]

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4006119]
    And for the record, the Roosevelt quote is utter trash, dumb as the day is long. Just cause he shares the name of the U.S.'s favorite Socialist, does not mean he was brilliant.[/QUOTE]

    I thought you'd love Teddy. He's the last (only?) 3rd party Prez we had. Teddy was outside of the 2 party paradigm. He's your dude!

    You really are an equal opportunity hater Warfish.

  11. #31
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4005979]I dunno. Maybe our next Republican Pres should do an experiment.

    He should make tax refunds illegal and they see how much 1Q profits for large corporations drop.

    I don't make much sense...but it would be a pretty cool experiment, wouldn't it.

    Or better yet...they should defund all foodstamp programs for 6 mos and see if there is a subsequent rise in shoplifting and then we can see if the cost of incarceration for the offenders is more or less than the foodstamps.

    I nominate Joe Arpiao to do that :P[/QUOTE]

    I appreciate that you get the government is redistributing money to Walmart through our social welfare system. What I don't get is why you support it?

  12. #32
    It is not enough for the rich to be rich, they have to amass all of the wealth and leave everyone else desperately poor

  13. #33
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4006130]Here's one from Jefferson:



    [IMG]http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/uu190/PlumberKhan/thomas_jefferson.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    Why don't you give him the whole story. It's interesting although CBNY will of course consider it libtard propaganda ;):

    From a letter of Jefferson in 1785:


    As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4006227]Why don't you give him the whole story. It's interesting although CBNY will of course consider it libtard propaganda ;):

    From a letter of Jefferson in 1785:


    As soon as I had got clear of the town I fell in with a poor woman walking at the same rate with myself and going the same course. Wishing to know the condition of the laboring poor I entered into conversation with her, which I began by enquiries for the path which would lead me into the mountain: and thence proceeded to enquiries into her vocation, condition and circumstances. She told me she was a day laborer at 8 sous or 4d. sterling the day: that she had two children to maintain, and to pay a rent of 30 livres for her house (which would consume the hire of 75 days), that often she could no employment and of course was without bread. As we had walked together near a mile and she had so far served me as a guide, I gave her, on parting, 24 sous. She burst into tears of a gratitude which I could perceive was unfeigned because she was unable to utter a word. She had probably never before received so great an aid. This little attendrissement, with the solitude of my walk, led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen, and lastly the class of laboring husbandmen. But after all there comes the most numerous of all classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be labored. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable, but the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.[/QUOTE]

    So, like Jefferson, I agree we should help all those people out there who are working their butts off trying to put bread on the table. However, I think you would agree the liberal social agenda has extended the definition of "needy". . .

    You think Jefferson would have been quite as concerned about people out there getting "assistance" and spending it on ipods and cool sneakers? Or ones who have stopped looking for work? Or ones who fall back on "historical injustices" to explain why they DESERVE to be taken care of?

    No one is arguing there are societal needs that have to be met. We just have different definitions of those needs.

  15. #35
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4006337]So, like Jefferson, I agree we should help all those people out there who are working their butts off trying to put bread on the table. However, I think you would agree the liberal social agenda has extended the definition of "needy". . .

    You think Jefferson would have been quite as concerned about people out there getting "assistance" and spending it on ipods and cool sneakers? Or ones who have stopped looking for work? Or ones who fall back on "historical injustices" to explain why they DESERVE to be taken care of?

    No one is arguing there are societal needs that have to be met. We just have different definitions of those needs.[/QUOTE]

    I don't know. When I suggested directing some budget savings from cut programs to help people who were in crisis from losing their jobs, several of our empathic conservatives jumped down my throat like I was inviting communists to the CIA archive. I think you will find that there are a good number of people out there who have comforted themselves with the idea that selfishness is a virtue and that in the great Darwinian game, they will be the alphas. It would be interesting to see that illusion tested in reality, not a website.

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4006356]I don't know. When I suggested directing some budget savings from cut programs to help people who were in crisis from losing their jobs, several of our empathic conservatives jumped down my throat like I was inviting communists to the CIA archive. I think you will find that there are a good number of people out there who have comforted themselves with the idea that selfishness is a virtue and that in the great Darwinian game, they will be the alphas. It would be interesting to see that illusion tested in reality, not a website.[/QUOTE]


    How do you define "in crisis"? Were they in danger of losing their home? Their car? That's a far cry from not being able to put bread on the table.

    I don't have much sympathy for people who don't know how to live within their means, and find themselves "in crisis" as soon as they don't have the funds they are used to. Unfortunately, this is exactly who much of the $$ goes to.

  17. #37
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,523
    I don't put too much stock either way in this because

    a. this is speculative

    b. it's 400 people



    But if I can plug old Teddy Roosevelt's idea of a hefty tax on the super rich (and their estates when they die), I will.

    We should tax the sh*t out of these 400 people and use it for NASA and alternative fuel research.

  18. #38
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,343
    [QUOTE=SafetyBlitz;4006490]I don't put too much stock either way in this because

    a. this is speculative

    b. it's 400 people



    But if I can plug old Teddy Roosevelt's idea of a hefty tax on the super rich (and their estates when they die), I will.

    We should tax the sh*t out of these 400 people and use it for NASA and alternative fuel research.[/QUOTE]

    Why should they be singled out and at what rate? Where do you draw the line of who should be in the "tax the sh*t out of" bracket? Who gets to choose?

    One thing I don't see mentioned in any of these articles declaring CEOs and the top 400 as greedy is how many people these people and their businesses employ.

  19. #39
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY;4004813]'95: $6 billion x 30%= $1.8 billion in tax revenue....

    '07: $22.9 billion x 17%= $3.8billion in tax revenues....

    [B]so the tax rate halved but the $$$ of taxes paid more than doubled[/B][/QUOTE]

    Can you find a more pathetic way to deflect from the obvious problem at hand created by members of YOUR party?

    The extremely wealthy in this country are making way the F more than everybody else COMBINED and somehow you manage to repeat a soundbyte from right-wing radio about how they are the ones we should feel sorry for? LOL. Who else is gonna stand for the more fortunate than you hero?

    Puh-lease, this is almost as pathetic as you trying to talk about John Murtha, an Ex-Marine combat veteran - while that bigot idiot in Florida is busy burning Korans and staging marches against Islam.

    I have a new name for you, and yes, it's not quite as entertaining, interesting and funny and chick-magneting as abilifyboy, I am going to call you Domink Hasek b/c you are the deflector!

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=Trades;4006720]Why should they be singled out and at what rate? Where do you draw the line of who should be in the "tax the sh*t out of" bracket? Who gets to choose?

    One thing I don't see mentioned in any of these [B][COLOR="Blue"]articles declaring CEOs and the top 400 as greedy is how many people these people[/COLOR][/B] and their businesses employ.[/QUOTE]

    It's a global policy too......"Let them eat cake"


    [B]Phone workers facing the axe told: 'You can move to the Philippines... and it includes a RICE allowance'[/B]

    [QUOTE]Workers facing the axe at a mobile phone company have been offered alternative employment in the Philippines.

    Staff at the Orange customer service centre in Darlington, County Durham, say they were even given details of a 'rice allowance' they could claim as part of the 'transfer' package to work for IBM in Manila.

    Orange, which last year merged with T-Mobile to create Everything Everywhere, recently confirmed that 40 staff would be affected by plans to outsource some work abroad.[/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1378029/Mobile-phone-workers-told-lose-jobs-Philippines-youll-rice-allowance.html[/url]

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us