We the people need to wake up!!!!!

If you want to know why the US is hurting so bad financially just look at our history. During WWI we gave between 70 -75% of our income to cover war cost. During WWII we gave up to 90% of our income to cover war cost. This went up and down but as a whole we paid way more taxes. We averaged around 60% during non-war time. Before the last two wars taxes had dropped down to 35% and has not changed. We have not paid one penny extra for either war or the extra cost of security. When your barely able to pay for the bills you have now, the though of having to pay 75-80% of your income is crazy. How did our grandparents do this?

Here is the catch, as a working man or women you only gave up around 25 to 35%. About the same as we are paying now. The rest came from the top income producers. We the common man do not understand how much money some people make. THe US has asked the rich to pay more from the start. The rich always stepped up and helped, and the elected officicals made sure they did. How did it change? As TV and the media grew we all became brainwashed to think that the goverment was taking all of our money. Why do we feel this way, because the rich spent the money to have shows telling you this. We were told that if you got rich you would have to pay 70% taxes, well guess what, most of us didn't get rich.

The goverment grows and shrinks and with Obamacare it will grow. The next Election it will shrink. The big change is the rich have the TV stations and the politicians in their pocket. If an official ask for taxes to be increased for the rich there is 10 news shows saying that we are turing into a socialist country! Guess what, we allways have been! For the common man to cover the extra cost of war it would take all of us to give up everything we make. Or the rich can give up there extra earnings for a few years the way it was done in the past. This goverment will never fail, it just may take the bottom 80% of the income producers to wake up and see what is going on. When I see a guy that is barely making it talk about redistribution of wealth being a bad thing, I get sick. I hope it doesn't take everyone making less than 300,000 a year being homeless to figure this out. Turn off FOX news and open your eyes. Read a history book!!!

[QUOTE=Crankinstein;522535]If you want to know why the US is hurting so bad financially just look at our history. During WWI we gave between 70 -75% of our income to cover war cost. During WWII we gave up to 90% of our income to cover war cost. This went up and down but as a whole we paid way more taxes. We averaged around 60% during non-war time. Before the last two wars taxes had dropped down to 35% and has not changed. We have not paid one penny extra for either war or the extra cost of security. When your barely able to pay for the bills you have now, the though of having to pay 75-80% of your income is crazy. How did our grandparents do this?

Here is the catch, as a working man or women you only gave up around 25 to 35%. About the same as we are paying now. The rest came from the top income producers. We the common man do not understand how much money some people make. THe US has asked the rich to pay more from the start. The rich always stepped up and helped, and the elected officicals made sure they did. How did it change? As TV and the media grew we all became brainwashed to think that the goverment was taking all of our money. Why do we feel this way, because the rich spent the money to have shows telling you this. We were told that if you got rich you would have to pay 70% taxes, well guess what, most of us didn't get rich.

The goverment grows and shrinks and with Obamacare it will grow. The next Election it will shrink. The big change is the rich have the TV stations and the politicians in their pocket. If an official ask for taxes to be increased for the rich there is 10 news shows saying that we are turing into a socialist country! Guess what, we allways have been! For the common man to cover the extra cost of war it would take all of us to give up everything we make. Or the rich can give up there extra earnings for a few years the way it was done in the past. This goverment will never fail, it just may take the bottom 80% of the income producers to wake up and see what is going on. When I see a guy that is barely making it talk about redistribution of wealth being a bad thing, I get sick. I hope it doesn't take everyone making less than 300,000 a year being homeless to figure this out. Turn off FOX news and open your eyes. Read a history book!!![/QUOTE]


Except you left out one minor point.........47 million Americans don't pay a single RED CENT in taxes, and in fact get upwards of 6,000 is gubment subsidies known as EARNED Income.

I don't mind paying more...but I will be DAMNED if I'm going to roll over and pay more when there are LEECHES that pay nothing.

I will happily pay an additional 1 percent for every 2 percent someone in that 47 million number is REQUIRED to pay.

Mathematically that is a hell of a deal.......I already pay upwards of 30%. I will pay an additional 5% if someone making 30k is asked to pay 10%. Now boys and girls......my 5% is a significant amount of JACK....

Think carefully my friends.

How about them apples.

Later,

Geo

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;522552]Except you left out one minor point.........47 million Americans don't pay a single RED CENT in taxes, and in fact get upwards of 6,000 is gubment subsidies known as EARNED Income.

I don't mind paying more...but I will be DAMNED if I'm going to roll over and pay more when there are LEECHES that pay nothing.

I will happily pay an additional 1 percent for every 2 percent someone in that 47 million number is REQUIRED to pay.

Mathematically that is a hell of a deal.......I already pay upwards of 30%. I will pay an additional 5% if someone making 30k is asked to pay 10%. Now boys and girls......my 5% is a significant amount of JACK....

Think carefully my friends.

How about them apples.

Later,

Geo[/QUOTE]
--
Our country has in the past done whatever was necessary to keep it strong and hopefully will continue to do so in the future... I would like to ask how you feel about your tax rate being "upwards of 30%"and at the same time the top income earners paying 14 or 15 percent, I believe you have argued in the past that the top of the financial food chain pays more than their share of the taxes, I believe they do pay something like 70% of the taxes or something like that but it seems to me it is very unfair to you and others like you to be paying "upwards of 30%" of your income while they they pay a rate of somewhere in the mid teens.... just seems a little one sided.

[QUOTE=Hlleonard;522553]--
Our country has in the past done whatever was necessary to keep it strong and hopefully will continue to do so in the future... I would like to ask how you feel about your tax rate being "upwards of 30%"and at the same time the top income earners paying 14 or 15 percent, I believe you have argued in the past that the top of the financial food chain pays more than their share of the taxes, I believe they do pay something like 70% of the taxes or something like that but it seems to me it is very unfair to you and others like you to be paying "upwards of 30%" of your income while they they pay a rate of somewhere in the mid teens.... just seems a little one sided.[/QUOTE]

My 30 percent is total taxes. My federal income taxes are lower than that.

I have ALWAYS had a problem with capital gains being taken as income. If your primary income is stock and the only taxes you pay is capital gains.........I'd LOVE to see a certain amount up to a fixed limit paid in income taxes. I don't know how you'd actually figure that, but I think it would be fair.

On the other hand, when I'm done and retired in 10-15-20 years.......I will be one of those folks who takes a significant amount of income from stocks and bonds where the only taxes I pay is capital gains.....It is a double edged sword.

You're partially right, but not completely......I think a change to the gains laws would be unfair to me when I'm in a position to use my investments as income. I've saved all my life and LOOK forward to when I can use those savings. An additional 15% income tax will be a severe penalty to me.

Now, if you're a BILLIONAIRE, or serious Millionaire, I really don't think you give two shits about 15% or 30% when we're talking about the actual dollars you claim as income.

For instance, Warren Buffet made all kinds of headlines during the election because he only paid 15% income taxes because all his income was from gains. Do you ACTUALLY think Buffet claimed his multi billions of dollars as income, and paid billions upon billions on that income. Of course not. He might have taken a few million as income. In that case, I'd like to see the first million or two taxed at the maximum income rate of 39% or whatever it is. And then the next million or 10 at the gains rate.

I don't think Buffet or any other billionaire or millionaire would really give a rats ass either way.

[QUOTE=Hlleonard;522553]--
Our country has in the past done whatever was necessary to keep it strong and hopefully will continue to do so in the future... I would like to ask how you feel about your tax rate being "upwards of 30%"and at the same time the top income earners paying 14 or 15 percent, I believe you have argued in the past that the top of the financial food chain pays more than their share of the taxes, I believe they do pay something like 70% of the taxes or something like that but it seems to me it is very unfair to you and others like you to be paying "upwards of 30%" of your income while they they pay a rate of somewhere in the mid teens.... just seems a little one sided.[/QUOTE]

And the DO pay more than their share........remember 15% of their income is something like MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars.....so as a percentage of income it is small, but as a percentage of TAXES collected, it is a significant amount.

Later,

Geo.

[QUOTE=Hlleonard;522553]--
Our country has in the past done whatever was necessary to keep it strong and hopefully will continue to do so in the future... I would like to ask how you feel about your tax rate being "upwards of 30%"and at the same time the top income earners paying 14 or 15 percent, I believe you have argued in the past that the top of the financial food chain pays more than their share of the taxes, I believe they do pay something like 70% of the taxes or something like that but it seems to me it is very unfair to you and others like you to be paying "upwards of 30%" of your income while they they pay a rate of somewhere in the mid teens.... just seems a little one sided.[/QUOTE] maybe in the next 100 years or so, the Trickle Down economics will kick in and start to work. but then maybe not.

[URL]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/08/jimmy-carter-middle-class/2941391/[/URL]

[QUOTE=waterdog101;522562]maybe in the next 100 years or so, the Trickle Down economics will kick in and start to work. but then maybe not.

[URL]http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/08/jimmy-carter-middle-class/2941391/[/URL][/QUOTE]
--
Well.... That was a grand idea and I do believe Mr. Reagan was sincere in his belief that folks who prospered would "share the bounty"... I have seen some statistics that suggest that is not the case... It does seem from some of the stats. that the top 1% seems to have stayed fairly constant in the wealth they hold, it also seems the 15 or 20 % below them has seen their wealth grow at a greater rate in the years since trickle down was suggested while the middle class seems to have suffered a decline in their numbers, not sure how anybody else might see that but to me it says people who have the ability to grow their own wealth at the cost of the people who are employed by them and at the cost of our country's economy seems to choose that and that seems to be against what Mr. Reagan advocated... It seems they warship him as their saint but don't seem to follow what he believed was right.... I believe most employers will pay no more to their employees than they are forced to pay.. That is the main reason I believe trade unions were very beneficial to the countries economy when they were thriving... Trickle down will never work.

What you have to understand is that when the top rates were that high most of the "rich" still didn't actually pay at that rate. Precisely because the rates were so high there were also all kinds of tax loopholes, deductions, and tax shelters written into the tax code available so people could use them as write offs and deductions in order hide much more of their incomes then they currently are able to do. In essence when the rates were that broad people lowered their real rates paid by taking advantage of all the tax shelters. When the tax rates were lowered the tax codes were simplified at the same time. So it really isn't as simplistic as you make it sound, and the differences are not as glaring as you probably assume them to be.

Capital gains and dividends should not be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. With capital gains doing so would really hurt the economy because there would be a lot less incentive for investors to risk their capital. Capital I might add that most often would have originally been taxes already at some point. With Dividends they are already double taxed in that the corporation pays out the dividends in after tax dollars, and then the individual also again pays tax on the money received in the form of a dividend.

The answer is less spending because we have a spending problem in the country, not a revenue problem. The solution to that is not to squeeze the investment capitol.

[QUOTE=SLP;522741]Capital gains and dividends should not be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. With capital gains doing so would really hurt the economy because there would be a lot less incentive for investors to risk their capital. Capital I might add that most often would have originally been taxes already at some point. With Dividends they are already double taxed in that the corporation pays out the dividends in after tax dollars, and then the individual also again pays tax on the money received in the form of a dividend.

The answer is less spending because we have a spending problem in the country, not a revenue problem. The solution to that is not to squeeze the investment capitol.[/QUOTE]
--
The solution from 1980 through 2008 left us with a debt that went from less than a trillion dollars to over ten trillion dollars and an economy that seemed to be in pretty bad shape at the end of that time... It seems to me the republican agenda (I have a pretty hard time finding democrats in that time frame that added substantially to that debt) got us in worse shape instead of better shape, after 30 years of that crap it would seem to be not working very well so maybe we need to do something a bit different.

Well, it is really not hard to follow. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem. Revenue went up steadily from 1980 to 2008, but unfortunately spending went up much faster. And I blame both parties for the spending, although more Democrats do seem to relish in it even more so.

Revenue- Outlays & Deficits (in current dollars & in billion dollars)

1980- Revenue-$517.1 __ Outlays- $590.9 ___ Deficit-$73.8
2008- Revenue-$2,524.0__ Outlays-$2,982.5__ Deficit-$458.6


Source:
[URL]http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/fed_receipt_sum_historical.gif[/URL]

[QUOTE=SLP;522745]Well, it is really not hard to follow. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem. Revenue went up steadily from 1980 to 2008, but unfortunately spending went up much faster. And I blame both parties for the spending, although more Democrats do seem to relish in it even more so.

Revenue- Outlays & Deficits (in current dollars & in billion dollars)

1980- Revenue-$517.1 __ Outlays- $590.9 ___ Deficit-$73.8
2008- Revenue-$2,524.0__ Outlays-$2,982.5__ Deficit-$458.6


Source:
[URL]http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/fed_receipt_sum_historical.gif[/URL][/QUOTE]
--
Two sides of the same coin... If we are going to spend money like drunkin sailors then maybe we should provide for that instead of continuing to borrow money we seemingly can't pay .... I do agree our government waste a tremendous amount of money... We do disagree on what fair taxation is, the right is always harping about income for the upper class being taxed thirty ways from texas, the taxes an individual pays is stated on his return and that is based on his income (regardless of how much was paid on it in corporate taxes) and that seems to be at a lower rate than the middle class.... The rate on social security taxes on wages is almost as high as the rate the upper class pays in income tax.