Chasm widens between rich and poor

[Dinsdale]

Declaring war on the middle class is the first warning sign the totalitarian traitors' plan is working. History books out front should have told you.


What to do?


Electing Ron Paul would be an excellent start.

Getting Big Government out of every aspect of life is a great defensive strategy when the middle class has been determined to be the enemy, and is used as a cash-cow to promote the elites' agendas.


Abolishing the income tax is a good thing, too. Then, rich people with political influence can't arbitrarily decide who gets to have money, and who doesn't.

But when anyone offers up a solution, all of a sudden Chicken Little buries his head again. So, it's probable nothing can be done to stop the disease of socialism-for-all-but-the-upper-crust(since it worked so well for the Soviets) which we're marching towards at a furious pace.

[Wolfman]

Beware of stats like "household income". For example-- when our youngest daughter was living with us and our combined "household income" was say $60,000. Then she leaves to go on her own and has an income of say $20,000. Now our average household income is--- viola--- $40,000 !
I would ask what is the per capita income.

[OCmike]

As my Old Man used to say: Work your ass off. Show up early and leave late. Doing so will make it difficult for them to lay you off and difficult for them not to promote you.

Sure, on occasion bad things happen to hard-working people, but for about 95% of us, if we do the things listed above, we'll be successful in life.

I have very little sympathy for the poor (except the elderly, ill or disabled) or those making minimum wage. If you kick ass at your job, whether it's flipping burgers at McDonald's or scanning tampons at WalMart, eventually you can get promoted and make more money.

The simple fact is that a large portion of the poor in this country just boohoo their way through life with their hand out wanting someone else to pay their bills for them. To them I say, "Get off your ass and get to work, fuckfaces. Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, don't get 'Ramon' tattooed on your neck, pull up your fucking pants, take out the nosering, wear your hat correctly and speak clear and concise english and maybe someone will offer you a decent-paying job."

[Cuda]

Declaring war on the middle class is the first warning sign the totalitarian traitors' plan is working. History books out front should have told you.


What to do?.

[Mikey]

It's a good thing if you're in the top 1%.

It sucks if you're not.

[Mister Bushice]

What's that? KC Paul on a take out Chinese dinner run?

[OCmike]

He'd still be hungry an hour later.

[RadioFan]

On average, incomes for the top 1 percent of households rose by $465,700 each, or 42.6 percent after adjusting for inflation. The incomes of the poorest fifth rose by $200, or 1.3 percent, and the middle fifth increased by $2,400 or 4.3 percent.

I always find this amusing.

Let me guess, the top 1 percent "worked" 10 times harder than the middle fifth, right?

Ah yes ... the excruciating labor of deciding what to do with the extra capital gains income. How terribly draining that must be.

[RadioFan]

Don't covet thy neighbor's shit, man.

Having been without electricity for more than a week, I haven't. But I see ya workin'

And what is it that would make anyone think that those in the 99th to 100th percentile of annual incomes would or should have the same percentage increase in their income as compared to those in the 40th to 60th percentile? Let's see. People in the 99th to 100th percentile of wage earners who do not continue to increase their income at a very significant rate probably fall down into the 98th percentile or so, being passed by those who are on a meteoric income rise. This is ridiculous statistic intended only to inflame class warfare.

The average guy's income went up by 4.3%, more than keeping pace with inflation. Not so bad. But I since those in the bottom 20% didn't fair as well, we probably ought to raise taxes on everyone else. You know. Just to be fair and stuff. But while we're at that, maybe we ought to look at the hours worked and the time spent preparing for a career and stats like that. Just sayin.

Your basic assumption is flawed. Namely, that "work" equals reward. You know, the whole "all you have to do is pull yourself up by the bootstraps, and you can be a millionaire/successful with two beautiful kids, a two car garage, a hottie wife and a white picket fence that will protect me from the undesirables" stuff.

Actually, there's something to be said for that. A good work ethic is essential -- hell, mandatory, these days. I've got nothing against that, especially because I live it, as do most here.

Just don't try to tell me the top 1 percent "should" get (as Bush's apologetic lackey in the story seems to say) anything, based on WORK.

As for the tax argument ... yeah, I get that, too. Only, trickle-down economics doesn't work. There is that. Unless, of course you want to discount that whole "human greed" deal. I'm sure the supply-side economists take that into account. ~ chuckle ~

I'm not sure what the solution is, other than maybe a flat tax, based on wealth -- not income -- with a ceiling for the poor (as in zero, below a living wage with 2 kids, for example ~ $25,000 or something). Though a flat tax on income would be a start, along with an overhaul of the fucking IRS.

[Moving Sale]

You misinterpreted what I wrote.

White flag waving POS much?

Go fuck your Autistic self... you horrid piece of crap.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I'm not sure what the solution is, other than maybe a flat tax, based on wealth -- not income -- with a ceiling for the poor (as in zero, below a living wage with 2 kids, for example ~ $25,000 or something).

Dude, $25,000/year for a family of four is borderline poverty level -- sayin'.

I see you working with respect to a flat tax based on wealth. Only problem is, wealth is even easier to hide than is income. A flat tax based on income won't work -- or at least, it won't work if your goal is to alleviate the disparity between those at the top and everyone else. It'll result in significantly less tax debt for those at the top, and quite possibly significantly more for those in the middle.

As for those suggesting abolishing the income tax altogether -- with what do you replace it? A national sales tax? Talk about your regressive taxes -- that would be the biggest boondoggle for the wealthy you've ever seen. And let's not forget that the proposal actually being used for a national sales tax was first proposed by the Church of Scientology. Yep, that's a real credible organization.

[smackaholic]

...won't work -- or at least, it won't work if your goal is to alleviate the disparity between those at the top and everyone else.

And here's the problem. It should not be anybody's fukking GOAL to set income levels.

The reason for a tax system is to provide revenue to run a gubmint. It should not have a fukking thing to do with steering anyone's income or anything else for that matter. When you give some fukking political hack the ability to do this, bad shit happens.

Steve Forbes made a good proposal a few years back with the flat tax. Trouble is, it would put countless cpas, lawyers, lobbyists and IRS workers outta work. So we won't see it.

They killed it by pointing out that people would lose their beloved real estate deduction which is a fukking scam anyway. Why should someone who carries a bigger mortgage get a tax break? Splain that one to me. I got about 70K left on mine because I bought less house and pay it off quicker. Why the fukk should some shitbag with the mc mansion and second and third mortgages get a break?

[PSUFAN]

You misinterpreted what I wrote.

White flag waving POS much?

Go fuck your Autistic self... you horrid piece of crap.

Boy, you sure showed him. Don't get trampled by the passers by, little fellah.

[War Wagon]

$25,000/year for a family of four is borderline poverty level -- sayin'.

Go fuck your horrid, autistic self, you white flag waving POS.

Sin
TVO

[Mikey]

The average guy's income went up by 4.3%, more than keeping pace with inflation.

From 2003 to 2005? I don't think so.

[poptart]

A Chasm widens thread and no Blondie pic yet?

Where did this all go wrong?

[BSmack]

A Chasm widens thread and no Blondie pic yet?

Where did this all go wrong?

Perk fell in the chasm.

Problem solved. No chasm anymore.

[Mikey]

A Chasm widens thread and no Blondie pic yet?

Where did this all go wrong?

Perk fell in the chasm.

Problem solved. No more chasm, no more Perk.

FTFY

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

:(

[Dinsdale]

The reason for a tax system is to provide revenue to run a gubmint. It should not have a fukking thing to do with steering anyone's income or anything else for that matter. When you give some fukking political hack the ability to do this, bad shit happens.

As for those suggesting abolishing the income tax altogether -- with what do you replace it?

A smaller government.

We have two winners here.


This end of the discussion reeks of ignorance.

Educate yourselves, People.

The Income Tax provides about 1/3rd of the federal budget. Since 1990, complete bullshit programs that do nothing (and I challenge anyone to name a post-1990 federal expansion that has had any significant æffect besides an increase in the federal budget) have increased the size, scope, and budget of the federal budget by about 1/3rd since 1990.


Eliminate the pork barrel bullshit the Constitution-hating federal government has implimented since 1990, and get the spending down to 1990 levels(which still had large defense expenditures, which can be shaved significantly, once you get the people who profit from large defense spending out of the defense budget making process... sin, Marcus Allen)...


There you go. Eliminate the Income Tax, and the huge red-tape overhead that the IRS creates.

Where's the problem?


http://www.ronpaul2008.com


Every journey begins with a step.

[Mikey]

:(

Don't get all upset now. This is all in good fun.

[BSmack]

Eliminate the pork barrel bullshit the Constitution-hating federal government has implimented since 1990, and get the spending down to 1990 levels(which still had large defense expenditures, which can be shaved significantly, once you get the people who profit from large defense spending out of the defense budget making process... sin, Marcus Allen)...

War profiteering is a tradition that predates the founding of the Republic. How, pray tell, do you plan to eliminate it?

[Mikey]

Eliminate the pork barrel bullshit the Constitution-hating federal government has implimented since 1990, and get the spending down to 1990 levels(which still had large defense expenditures, which can be shaved significantly, once you get the people who profit from large defense spending out of the defense budget making process... sin, Marcus Allen)...

War profiteering is a tradition that predates the founding of the Republic. How, pray tell, do you plan to eliminate it?

Just vote for Ron Paul. He'll slay the evil beasties.

[Dinsdale]

War profiteering is a tradition that predates the founding of the Republic. How, pray tell, do you plan to eliminate it?

It is.

We can't.


BUT... if you start putting names like Cheney in the White House...

Do I really need to explain any more?

People with huge, direct financial/political ties to warmongerer corporations have no freaking business uttering so much as one word about government policy.

Of course, it would appear that the Average Joe ain't too bright. If 10 years ago, someone said "Hey... you know that Cheney guy... the former warmongering cabinet guy who's now the CEO of the most crooked company in American history... yeah, that guy... we should let HIM decide who should get bombed. Well, sure, the idea his 'boss'-the-bombmaker paid him tens of millions of dollars to quit his job and start making the bombing-decisions is a little suspect, but I want a guy in office who stands to gain a boatload of cash for generations of his gay family with his finger on the trigger"... I would have laughed...


But never underestimate the stupidity and ignorance of large groups of retards.

[BSmack]

Dins,

You're preaching to the choir when it comes to my opinion on Cheney.

That being said, I think you just proposed stripping defense contractors of their First Amendment rights. You sure about that?

[Goober McTuber]

A Chasm widens thread and no Blondie pic yet?

Where did this all go wrong?

Perk fell in the chasm.

Problem solved. No more chasm, no more Perk.

FTFY

That means no more Martard posts, either.

[Dinsdale]

That being said, I think you just proposed stripping defense contractors of their First Amendment rights.

Not at all.

Although our current "defense" principles are so far out of whack -- immoral and unsustainable -- there is a need for military equipment. And of course, a competitive free market is the best way to accomplish that, since the DoD doesn't (nor should it) have manufacturing plants and whatnot.

I propose that the really really really REALLY stupid people -- like say, the half that voted for vested warmongers for the executive positions should have their right to vote revoked.


OK, maybe not. But it's mindboggling that people could keep falling for this shit. Simply mindboggling.


And I hear more derision being slung Dr. Paul's way. Also mindboggling. You have throngs of politicians fighting over how much more of YOUR money they're going to take, and how they'll distribute it to other countries and illegal immigrants to this country. Then, you have ONE guy whose mission is to figure out how to take LESS of your money, and you tards laugh.


That truly is the definition of a fucking retard, ain't it? The one guy who wants to impact your life the least is some novelty act in the eyes of most.

Enjoy the Socialist Staes of America, tards. Of course, if you educated yourselves even the slightest bit, your eyes would be bulging out of your head and you'd be both shocked and angered that fatcats have pulled the wool over your eyes. But doing a little research into the increase in the size of federal government over the last 15 years or so is too much for most of you. And asking you to try and extrapolate the graph and realize that if nothing is done soon, the federal government will be keeping at least 75% of your paycheck in the foreseeable future is much too much math for you people.


Just be good little Sheeple, follow the asshole in front of you, and hand that money over so that money can be used to fund a debate of what should be done with the rest of your money...


That's a good little communist... just keep up that staus quo, that's all they ask. DO NOT question what's being done with that extra 1/3 chunk of your money over the last decade or so (some people just can't seem to grasp this... they take 1/3rd more now than they did when Clinton was first elected, and Bush made it worse). NEVER question the Illuminati. Just give them your money. If they ask for more, the only acceptable answer is "YES SIR!!! HOW MUCH??!!??"


Because that's what good little communists do. If you had a relative doe fighting communism in Korea or Vietnam... don't worry about them rolling over in their grave as you embrace whhat they gave their life to fight... this is the New World Order, and your job is to know your role in it -- which is to work and support the 50% that wants to define their "work" as deciding how to spend the money YOU made.


Yeah, baby! Let the March to Communism begin!!! I'm guessing at least 95% vote for communism every single time you step into a voting booth, so you should be happy when the only paycheck you get comes from the federal government... after they take their cut, of course.


And you better laugh about it now... the window to laugh it all off as some big joke is going to close more quickly than you could ever imagine. How long did it take in Eastern Europe when it was decided that life was unfair, and government intervention was the answer to that inequity? About 2 years?


Laugh it up NOW, retards. You won't be laughing soon.

[Cuda]

War profiteering is a tradition that predates the founding of the Republic. How, pray tell, do you plan to eliminate it?

It is.

We can't.


BUT... if you start putting names like Cheney in the White House...

Do I really need to explain any more?

People with huge, direct financial/political ties to warmongerer corporations have no freaking business uttering so much as one word about government policy..

Add Feinstein, Boxer, Murtha & Pelosi to that list of war profiteers. Duke Cunningham- a true war hero- is doing prison time for less than those California Cunts have done openly for years.

[RumpleForeskin]

What's funny about the top 1% is in order to receive tax breaks on their reported income, they usually will invest a shitload of money at the end of the year in Oil and Gas partnerships which hands them anywhere between 80 and 100% in intangible drilling costs. So, if they invest $100,000 in an Oil and Gas LP, they can take $80,000 to $100,000 in those IDCs and report it against their income. Strange how a taxbreak of this magnitude is only available for accredited investors. Doesn't seem fair. Oh, I forgot to mention that this type of investment not only gives the top 1% a healthy tax-cut, but it usually provides them with hefty distributions when those wells go online.

[Mikey]

And asking you to try and extrapolate the graph and realize that if nothing is done soon, the federal government will be keeping at least 75% of your paycheck in the foreseeable future is much too much math for you people.

Here's your big chance, Dins. YOU extrapolate the graph. I'm not saying that we're not highly taxed, but we are taxed a lot lower than most other countries.

And this is the TOTAL tax burden (federal, state and local taxes), not the federal government. So tell me, from your extrapolation when in the foreseeable future will the COMBINED tax burden be at least 75%.

Exaggerate much?



Data source: The Tax Foundation
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/

[Mikey]

BTW, I'm also having a hard time here seeing the "1/3 more now than when Clinton was first elected". Can you help me with this?

[BSmack]

BTW, I'm also having a hard time here seeing the "1/3 more now than when Clinton was first elected". Can you help me with this?

Why do you hate America?

[Dinsdale]

Damn, that graph has one hell of a spike right around the time frame I cited, don't it?


Oh... and nevermind the deficit spending and borrowing money to do so... that should make the graph trend downwards, right?

[Mikey]

BTBTW...

If you smooth the recent data to only include every 10 years, as in the early years (plus this year), it appears that the rate is going down. Extrapolate that to 75% please.

[War Wagon]

Exaggerate much?

Who, Dins?

Not a chance.

[Dinsdale]

If you smooth the recent data to only include every 10 years, as in the early years (plus this year), it appears that the rate is going down.

Wow. The word "gullible" comes to mind.

Uhm... newsflash... the fed is spending money they don't have. That bill doesn't magically disappear... it gets passed on to someone else, although some deceitful politicians will tout "yeah, but look at the dip in total taxation."


But at least you fell for it.

[BSmack]

If you smooth the recent data to only include every 10 years, as in the early years (plus this year), it appears that the rate is going down.

Wow. The word "gullible" comes to mind.

Uhm... newsflash... the fed is spending money they don't have. That bill doesn't magically disappear... it gets passed on to someone else, although some deceitful politicians will tout "yeah, but look at the dip in total taxation."

But at least you fell for it.

So how are you figuring the debt repayment into the equation? Are you amortizing the debt over a period of time? Or is it a lump sum repayment that you are using to get to 75%?

[Dinsdale]

What part of this are you having trouble understanding?

[Mikey]

You were talking about taxes, right?

If you want to change the subject you should start a new thread.

BTW...that chart looks pretty scary, but it would look a lot less scary if you

1. Put the origin at 0 (exaggerate much?)

2. Took out Bush's Iraq war spending.

[Mikey]

If you smooth the recent data to only include every 10 years, as in the early years (plus this year), it appears that the rate is going down.

Wow. The word "gullible" comes to mind.

Uhm... newsflash... the fed is spending money they don't have. That bill doesn't magically disappear... it gets passed on to someone else, although some deceitful politicians will tout "yeah, but look at the dip in total taxation."

But at least you fell for it.

So how are you figuring the debt repayment into the equation? Are you amortizing the debt over a period of time? Or is it a lump sum repayment that you are using to get to 75%?

About 1/3 of federal spending is interest on the debt.