|
SadistDave -> RE: The Republican Candidates’ Economic Agenda For The 1 Percent (1/4/2012 1:32:18 PM)
|
What a load of hogwash. How about a little point-by-point analysis here...
1. Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much? Lets take a quick look and see, shall we? The 1% seem to pay a considerably higher percentage of income tax than anyone else. In other words, the successful people are being punished while the leeches in society like the OWS movement bunch whine and complain about how life is so unfair.
Tax Year 2009
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$343,927
36.73
Top 5%
$154,643
58.66
Top 10%
$112,124
70.47
Top 25%
$66,193
87.30
Top 50%
$32,396
97.75
Bottom 50%
<$32,396
2.25
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
Tax Year 2008
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$380,354
38.02
Top 5%
$159,619
58.72
Top 10%
$113,799
69.94
Top 25%
$67,280
86.34
Top 50%
$33,048
97.30
Bottom 50%
<$33,048
2.7
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
Tax Year 2007
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$410,096
40.42
Top 5%
$160,041
60.63
Top 10%
$113,018
71.22
Top 25%
$66,532
86.59
Top 50%
$32,879
97.11
Bottom 50%
<$32,879
2.89
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
Tax Year 2006
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$388,806
39.89
Top 5%
$153,542
60.14
Top 10%
$108,904
70.79
Top 25%
$64,702
86.27
Top 50%
$31,987
97.01
Bottom 50%
<$31,987
2.99
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
For Tax Year 2005
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$364,657
39.38
Top 5%
$145,283
59.67
Top 10%
$103,912
70.30
Top 25%
$62,068
85.99
Top 50%
$30,881
96.93
Bottom 50%
<$30,881
3.07
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
For Tax Year 2004
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$328,049
36.89
Top 5%
$137,056
57.13
Top 10%
$99,112
68.19
Top 25%
$60,041
84.86
Top 50%
$30,122
96.70
Bottom 50%
<$30,122
3.30
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
For Tax Year 2003
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$295,495
34.27
Top 5%
$130,080
54.36
Top 10%
$94,891
65.84
Top 25%
$57,343
83.88
Top 50%
$29,019
96.54
Bottom 50%
<$29,019
3.46
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
For Tax Year 2002
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$285,424
33.71
Top 5%
$126,525
53.80
Top 10%
$92,663
65.73
Top 25%
$56,401
83.90
Top 50%
$28,654
96.50
Bottom 50%
<$28,654
3.50
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
For Tax Year 2001
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$292,913
33.89
Top 5%
$127,904
53.25
Top 10%
$92,754
64.89
Top 25%
$56,085
82.90
Top 50%
$28,528
96.03
Bottom 50%
<$28,528
3.97
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
For Tax Year 2000
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$313,469
37.42
Top 5%
$128,336
56.47
Top 10%
$92,144
67.33
Top 25%
$55,225
84.01
Top 50%
$27,682
96.09
Bottom 50%
<$27,682
3.91
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
For Tax Year 1999
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$293,415
36.18
Top 5%
$120,846
55.45
Top 10%
$87,682
66.45
Top 25%
$52,965
83.54
Top 50%
$26,415
96.00
Bottom 50%
<$26,415
4.00
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
2. Don't you think that with the economy going in the toilet and unemployment being at record levels since the Great Depression (Well, thats the Bamsters spin anyway.) that it would make sense to encourage companies to spend money instead of holding unused assets in limbo until the economy impoves? Something the OWS idiots don't seem to understand is that even if no jobs are created directly, spending money creates jobs at least indirectly. The liberal loonies don't seem to understand that if Billionare X buys a yacht, and it takes 50 people to build it and 20 companies to supply the builders; then Billionare X is creating jobs. When a corporation spends money, the same rule applies.
3. "Supports ending Medicare as we know it" is an incomplete statement. They also favor different ideas to create a system that works better than Medicare. Medicare is a failing program that is incapable of doing what it was intended to do. So, if someone supports the idea of scrapping a program that doesn't work in order to create one that does work... I think they are using some common sense.
4. Again, they also support individual programs to make up the difference. Some of those candidates support a program that would let you open a special retirement savings account that would have higher returns and be tax free. Some of them support another type of privatized investment program that would suppliment individual retirement and not penalize anyone that managed to make money. Most of them support ending social security benefits for the wealthy, eben though the wealthy would not be exempt from paying SSI.
5. Dodd - Frank is an invasive law that regulates financial markets by creating 243 rules, conducting 67 studies, and issuing 22 periodic reports according to one independent analysis. It bloats the government with burdensome regulations that will end up costing more than the few worthwhile provisions in the bill are actually worth.
6. The Buffet Rule... You are aware that Warren Buffet is currently suing the IRS to avoid paying around 640 million in back taxes owed by one of his companies, aren't you? Until he pays his own tax debt of his own free will, he has nothing worthwhile to say on the subject.
7. This country runs on oil. Oil that is found, pumped, refined and transported by private interests. You probably have no idea how many products are actually made from oil. If it helps clear thuis up for you, aside from gasoline, almost all plastics are made from oil. I bet you use a lot of plastic... Aside from the small problem we have in this country with an over dependence on gasoline powered vehicles, oil is literally the lifeblood of this country and the worlds economy. Strong oil companies keep prices down for private use. Until such a time as we replace the need for oil with something that is a viable solution to the economic needs of the private sector AND is a profitable business venture; we're stuck with Big Oil. You don't have to like it. I sure as hell don't, but the reality is that it is not going to be replaced anytime soon, and if oil production stops because of overregulation or because it suddenly becomes unprofitable, the results would be disasterous for this country.
8. Again, that is an incomplete statement. Each of the candidates also believes that it would be a far better solution to stop punishing businesses for being successful in America. Basically what they are all saying is that if you own a business you should be able to do business wherever you want to, and if the American government continues to overreglate private business, then those private businesses will simply go overseas to countries that are less intrusive. If given the choice between losing the jobs, or losing the jobs and the money they would rather see the money keep coming back to American interests. This is basic economics. It makes sense to promote an atmosphere in our own country to make keeping American companies doing business in America. This isn't even a political issue. It's a reality issue. The reality is that if a business cannot make enough profit to keep it's product rolling out the door, then it will close. No one wants to start a business that is doomed to failure due to regulation, which is why they oppose Dodd - Frank, which imposes invasive regulation on the private sector. More burdonsome regulations mean higher prices. As long as the economy is in stasis, it doesn't make sense to regulate jobs out of existence.
What DOES make sense is to do everything possible to insure that jobs are available here, and that American products are of a high enough quality and inexpensive enough that they have market value across the globe. Adding to the cost of doing business will only make things worse, not better. Over-regulation means less profit. Less profit means less jobs. Less jobs means a smaller tax base. A smaller tax base means less funding for government programs. Less government programs means that blood sucking pinheads who think life should be a free ride are going to have to find jobs that don't exist because of over-regulation.
-SD-
|
|
|
|
