Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·CenturyLink
 ·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
 ·Millenicom
| The Two Percenters are at it again.  The Broadband industry is a reflection of the make up of the US population and economy. Two Percent of the population controls 95% of the wealth. A small percentage of companies control the broadband and communications services.
Let the uneducated vote in the greedy old pigs (GOP) this November so they can permanently reduce taxes for the wealthiest 2% and block any relief for communication services customers. |
|
|
|
1 edit | 'Propaganda' from the 'greedy old pigs' is running rampant. Keep the Rich, rich. And keep the poor in the Sheeple position with blinders on.
Consumers keep screwing themselves by acting on mis-information.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
--
Consumer Rights is more than just a suggestion. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt:Two Percent of the population controls 95% of the wealth. And ~40% pay no taxes to support our government...maybe they shouldn't have a voice? |
|
3 edits | reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt: Two Percent of the population controls 95% of the wealth. Here are the CORRECT numbers:
10% of the population controls 30% of the income -
»www.cia.gov/library/publications···rRow=#us
United States lowest 10%: 2%
highest 10%: 30% (2007 est.)
And compare to the WORLD avgs:
World lowest 10%: 2.5%
highest 10%: 29.5% (2003 est.) »sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri···lth.html
And as for WEALTH distribution the top 20% of the population owns 85% of the wealth. NOT 2% owning 95% as you claim.
And an interesting chart:
More info:
»www.wider.unu.edu/publications/w···8-03.pdf
Check Table 1 |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Comcast
·Embarq Now Centu..
·Millenicom
| reply to openbox9
Forty percent pay no taxes because they do not have any income. They do not have any income because their jobs have been sent overseas on a slow boat to China and are living in poverty.
It was just brought to my attention, on a talk show, that all employed persons pay a 15% payroll tax until they have earned over 100,000.00 Then they stop paying the payroll tax. The payroll tax is regressive. The two percenters pay a smaller portion of their income in payroll taxes than 98% of Americans.
Do you want to allow Americas wealthiest 2% to keep their tax cut so that they can buy another yacht, Rolls Royce or a home theater for their Twenty Million Dollar Mansion while your neighbors are being evicted from their foreclosed homes because they were tricked into buying a house that they could not afford by the Wall Street Weasels. The same weasels are screwing consumers on communications services by not disclosing the true cost of their services when they quote prices. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Don't forget how much interest these super wealthy earn off shore where it cannot be taxed by the US Government.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | reply to Mr Matt
the 15% payroll tax is for Social Security and what, Medicare? its actually split 50/50 between the employer and employee but if you dare to be self-employed you will indeed pay the 15% all by yourself....
and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT.... |
|
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | reply to Kearnstd
yeah, steal their money...Get 'em, Get 'em.... |
|
jfd15
join:2008-01-07
West Sacramento, CA | reply to fAcEtIOUs
and one more stat they don't want to mention....the top 10% of earners pay 71% of the taxes in the U.S.....
i've only made more than $20k one year in my life but i'm grateful to those evil high-earners who pay 10,100, or 1000x the taxes that the avg person does....we don't need to villify them and steal their money.... |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt: It was just brought to my attention, on a talk show, that all employed persons pay a 15% payroll tax until they have earned over 100,000.00 Then they stop paying the payroll tax. The payroll tax is regressive. I like a lot of what you've said. But, you're not describing the above accurately.
I believe you're referring to Social Security, which is (technically) an insurance premium (Google for "FICA" which is called "insurance.").
Although the "premium" stops at $100k of income, it is very far from "regressive."
Go here and download the PDF (top-right corner). Print it, and "figure" your Social Security benefit by hand.
You'll see:
• The first 90% of your monthly benefit comes from the first $700 of monthly income.
• The next $3800 in monthly income contributes just 32% to your monthly benefit.
• The next $4000 in monthly income contributes just 12% yo your monthly benefit.
It stops there because earners didn't pay "premiums" on incomes above that level.
So, as you see, on the receiving side, it's significantly progressive. People who earned more, paid more, and didn't receive a proportional benefit.
Maybe it should be more progressive. Maybe the "disability" component of Social Security should be removed and treated like the welfare program it is. Maybe Social Security "retirement" benefits treated more like an annuity (real insurance).
But, it's misleading to focus on the 15% (employer/employee) "contribution" as a flat (regressive) tax without revealing how that 15% is distributed when a "claim" is filed. We'll never have thoughtful reform if we don't understand what it is we're reforming. (Like the other side who mislead people by saying it's a savings account, and they can do better with private savings.). |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to jfd15
said by jfd15:and one more stat they don't want to mention....the top 10% of earners pay 71% of the taxes in the U.S..... The question is whether that's fair.
For example, I doubt you'd suggest that the top 10% should pay 10% of the taxes in the US. Clearly you have your own ideas about what's "fair." So, we're just negotiating "fair." Should it be 71% or, 78% ?
The problem with the idea that the wealthiest Americans are paying their fair share is that, since taxes were made less progressive (in the early '80s), the top 10% have increased their share of every dollar earned to its highest level since 1929 (when wealth disparity was at its highest levels). From 34% to 46%. About a 33% increase.
But, more revealing is that almost *all* the top one-tenth's share gains, went to the top 1%, or the top "centile," who doubled their share of national cash income from 9% to 19%.
Even within the top centile, however, the distribution of gains was radically skewed. Nearly 60% of it went to the top *tenth* of 1% of the population, and more than a fourth of it to the top *one-hundreth* of 1% of the population.
Overall, the top tenth of 1% more than tripled their share of cash income to about 9%, while the top one-hundreth of 1%, or fewer than 15,000 taxpayers, quadrupled their share to 3.6% of all taxable income. Among those 15,000, the average tax return reported $26 mil of income in 2005, while the take for the entire group was $384 bil.
In 2005, the 300,000 men, women and children who comprised the top tenth of 1% had nearly as much income as all 150 million Americans who make up the economic lower half of our population.
30 years ago, Ronald Reagan asked, "are you better off today than you were four years ago?" He used this rhetorical question to get elected and reduce the progressivity of taxation. (And, eliminate various regulations which allowed government-backed Savings & Loans to be pillaged.).
Today, if we ask the same question, we're met with jeers of "socialism." |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Mr Matt: Two Percent of the population controls 95% of the wealth. Here are the CORRECT numbers: 10% of the population controls 30% of the income - That was a tricky switch of terms (from "wealth" to "income"). When the wealthiest individuals earn their income from investing their wealth, controlling 30% of the national income signifies something far larger about the disparity of national wealth used to control that income.
There's no way to spin as positive our growing disparity of either wealth or income.
We were told 30 years ago that shifting the tax burden away from the wealthiest individuals would result in "trickle-down" benefit to all.
Instead, the average American's inflation-adjusted income has declined while the top 10% has grown (the top 1% at obscene rates of growth).
This trend of income inequality does not portend greatness. See:
(Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/189649-wealth-disparities-in-u-s-approaching-1920s-levels)
See also the Gini index which shows the same trend. And, worse, that we are increasingly having more in common with Mexico, Brazil and Russia.[1] Nations where individuals have the vote, but real political power is held by the wealthy elite.
The same trend is seen in wealth disparity (not merely income disparity):
quote:
In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.[14]
According to this 2006 study by the Federal Reserve System, from 1989 to 2004, the distribution in the United States had been changing with indications there was a greater concentration of wealth held by the top 10% and top 1% of the population.[1]
-- »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributi···d_States
quote:
Various sociological statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth."[2]
-- »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_ine···d_States
These trends can only be worsening when the financial industry was bailed out (so what amounted to "bets" could be paid off). And, at the same time, record numbers of Americans have lost jobs, downgraded to poor jobs.
There's nothing positive about this.
Note to the "it's mine, I wanna keep it" crowd: reduced disparity doesn't equal "equality." Nobody of any significance wants perfect "equality." It's just a matter of how unequal we can be without undermining a sense that this nation exists to benefit everyone.
For example: America's exports are decimated by China's manipulated currency. The result is American jobs lost. We won't retaliate against China because we need China to keep North Korea in line.
The result? Common Americans are paying for the nation's strategic defense. What kind of "wealth transfer" is that? Why shouldn't those who's incomes are growing pay more to offset the effect of low-level Americans losing their jobs as a result of unfair trade? Trade that remains unfair because "we" have a national interest in allowing it to continue?
[1] For Russia's Gini value, see here. |
|
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·World Lynx
| reply to jfd15
said by jfd15:and one more stat they don't want to mention....the top 10% of earners pay 71% of the taxes in the U.S..... i've only made more than $20k one year in my life but i'm grateful to those evil high-earners who pay 10,100, or 1000x the taxes that the avg person does....we don't need to villify them and steal their money.... Well hoss, if more people had better paying jobs there would be more taxable income that could be collected by the government to support you.
As Mr. Matt put it, the Reagan 'trickle down' did not work. The rich are going to do everything in their power to not spend a penny more than they have to. They have off-shored most industrial labor, they incorporate their main office in the Cayman Islands (less taxation) and other tax friendly nations.
You see companies now selling more products and concentrating more on China because that where a bigger chunk of their sales are at. Why? Because...ding.ding.ding! They have most of the jobs over there! People have jobs and have money to spend! But wait! The U.S. can't collect taxes off of them! Uh oh! 
Who's gonna pay your income when Joe Blow no longer has a job over here?  |
|
Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to jfd15
said by jfd15:the 15% payroll tax is for Social Security and what, Medicare? its actually split 50/50 between the employer and employee but if you dare to be self-employed you will indeed pay the 15% all by yourself.... and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT.... and yes, i do want to "ALLOW" the wealthiest 2% to keep their money because THEY EARNED IT by lying to the other 98% of the populace and decieved them. -- Fixed for you  |
|
| reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt:your neighbors are being evicted from their foreclosed homes because they were tricked into buying a house that they could not afford by the Wall Street Weasels. That's the funniest thing I've read online today. Help me! I got tricked into buying a house! It's not my fault! |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt:Forty percent pay no taxes because they do not have any income. Sure they don't. They more likely don't have any income above a certain threshold based on our screwed up tax code.said by Mr Matt:that all employed persons pay a 15% payroll tax until they have earned over 100,000.00 Which tax are you specifically referring to? Medicare? Social Security? The withhold rates are 1.45% and 6.2% respectively. The Social Security tax tops out at $106.8K of income in 2010. Of course, the benefit from the program is capped as well. So, not really regressive considering the benefit is capped.
Feel free to read more if you're interested: »www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdfsaid by Mr Matt:Do you want to allow Americas wealthiest 2% to keep their tax cut I think as a society we pay too many taxes as it is, so yes, I believe the tax cuts should stand for everyone.said by Mr Matt:while your neighbors are being evicted from their foreclosed homes because they were tricked into buying a house that they could not afford by the Wall Street Weasels. Wow. What a distorted understanding of reality. If anyone did the tricking it was our government that wrongly suggested that everyone should own a home and used its mortgage arms of Fannie and Freddie to attempt to make it a reality.said by Mr Matt:The same weasels are screwing consumers on communications services by not disclosing the true cost of their services when they quote prices. Huh? What Wall Street weasels are screwing consumers on communications services? |
|
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
I'd be interested to see what the "overall" numbers look like instead of just the percentages of distribution. For example, if during that time, the poorest still doubled their income while the richest quadrupled their income, even the poorest are still FAR better off. If there's more wealth in the system, everyone is benefiting, even if some are gaining at a more rapid rate. Trying to make everything as equal as possible just creates a system where everyone is brought down to the lowest common denominator... |
|
| reply to jfd15
said by jfd15:yeah, steal their money...Get 'em, Get 'em.... Hyperbole. No one said anything about stealing anything. Taxes are levied and assessed, and paid by all. No thieving necessary.
Everyone pays some form of tax. Even welfare and unemployment are taxed. My Navy retirement is taxed. Everyone pays sales tax, gasoline tax, various excise taxes, etc. |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
We are turning into a third world country, where the aristocrats rule, and the poor live in slums. We are loosing the middle class as a result of corporate and millionaire greed. Soon we will have small opulent walled and gated areas, surrounded by vast slums, just like India and Venezuela. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to footballdude
said by footballdude:said by Mr Matt:your neighbors are being evicted from their foreclosed homes because they were tricked into buying a house that they could not afford by the Wall Street Weasels. That's the funniest thing I've read online today. Help me! I got tricked into buying a house! It's not my fault! Technically, the same thing could be said for Bernie Madhoff's victims. They should have known above-market yields don't occur without above-market risks.
The problem during the real-estate bubble was cash poured into mortgage-backed securities for the same reason: above-market yields which looked like AAA-grade due to the trickery of CDOs and CDSs.
With all that cash pouring in, just dying for mortgages to invest in, we ended up with reassurances to home buyers, like "Suzanne researched this... you can do it:"
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ubsd-tWYmZw
Sure, home buyers were ultimately responsible for being misled. But, as was the case with Enron, Madhoff, et. al., we tend to take a dim view of those who mislead.
In this case, the financial industry (and investors) were bailed out. I believe it had to be, or it would have taken us all down further than it already has. But, this is another example of why wealth (and income) disparity has widened to levels that make us have more in common with corrupt nations. |
|
