Fact Check: Obama Says Rich Pay Lower Tax Rate Then Middle Class.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Why should the rich pay extra taxes? Simple, they more than any other group, thanks to their own greed, created the mess the United States finds itself in today. Poor people simply don't have the means to pay anything, because of all the virtual taxes they must pay to our elite just to get by in America today.

[mawilson 2,133]

Simple, they more than any other group, thanks to their own greed, created the mess the United States finds itself in today.

The rich didn't overborrow and overextend their credit to buy things they could not afford - the poor and middle classes did.

[웃 910]

Just a reminder, you're ignoring the fact that I've said several times I was held for charges that were dropped. Care to explain that one?

You couldn't make bond?

[웃 910]

No, it's the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.

The cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the so-called "rich" (individuals who make over $200k or couples over $250k) was estimated (by the CBO) to be 700 billion dollars; for everyone else - $3 trillion. (These are 10-year estimates.)

We could balance our budget tomorrow by repealing the Bush tax cuts across the board.

link

There was an example by Bill Mahr where he said our current situation (where the top 1% control 80% of the money) is like 100 people sharing a pizza. The first guy (top 1%) walks into the room and chows down the first 80 slices....Leaving 20 slices for the next 99 people.

According to FactCheck.org only 2% of households reported making over $250k in 2008.

So using your numbers extending the Bush Tax Cuts on 2% of the households in America would cost $700 billion....And for everyone else (the remaining 98%) it costs $3 trillion.

So 19% of the costs (700 billion out of 3.7 trillion in total costs) come from 2% of the population...And the remaining 81% of the costs (3 trillion of 3.7 trillion) come from 98% of the population...

So back to the pizza analogy:

Basically you have a 100 slice Bush Tax Cut Extension pizza.

2 people (2% the population) walk in and eat 19 slices (9.5 slices each)....The remaining 98 people have to share 81 slices. Not even 1 slice per person.

Is this an accurate assessment?

Edited September 23, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[Póg mo 1,749]

The rich didn't overborrow and overextend their credit to buy things they could not afford - the poor and middle classes did.

And what were the super rich doing while this was all going on? Goldman Sachs is owned by who exactly?

[mawilson 2,133]

And what were the super rich doing while this was all going on? Goldman Sachs is owned by who exactly?

Doing different things. Some were running Goldman Sachs. Others were running McDonalds and Home Depot.

What are you trying to say, that all rich people must be punished because some banks misbehaved?

[slim 1,525]

That is the truth of America - its socially blind and every man for himself. That thinking permeates everything from the executions, to universal health care, to tax policy

If our systems were solely based on this we'd be OK. The problem is we've blurred this line and now tax people to care for those who can't make it on their own. It's somehow become the responsibility of everyone to care for the few.

That's not American.

It really depends upon the circumstances. Were the charges dropped completely and there is no replacement or lesser charges? If it was two guys overreacting and the police and prosecutors dropped the charges as a result, then yes, I agree with you that all those costs should go to them.

I was convicted of one charge, a non-violent misdemeanor. Had that been the only charge from the start I would've been arrested and bonded out the next day.

However, the charges that kept me in jail were a felony (that was ignored because there was no evidence) and two violent misdemeanors based on statements made by other citizens. All of those charges were dropped. Had the police not been overzealous in their charges this would've been nothing more than a quick stay in jail to get processed and then one appearance in court.

So where is their shallow grave ?

I'd never met the guys before and haven't seen them since.

I'm not advocating for taking people's money: more criticizing the argument that, where taxes are already a reality, putting the hurt on the poor with justifications like "they're not really working hard" or "they need to learn to be more careful with their pittance so I can keep my mansion" is a productive or moral solution. This is because I have been a great many things in my life (including both poor and wealthy, though never on benefits). I'm actually what you would call "fiscally conservative" insomuch as I believe the most likely solution (if there is such a thing as a "solution") to any of of our internal economic problems is to massively overhaul and streamline most types of government service, rather than completely eliminate them. The government is wasting lots of money, to be sure.

Creating an underclass is not a tenable solution in the long term because, as I've said, disgruntled and impoverished people tend to commit crimes of necessity and/or eventually riot. Many people who are poor are actually trapped in that situation to a large and real extent. There are plenty of good anthropological works on the subject. Your argument that if they were resourceful enough to have lead, they wouldn't need to riot is just silly. A gun can be gotten for $50, but it's no substitute for a job. It won't help you get a job. But it can help you get someone else's wallet. And if you go to jail for it, your opportunities will be even more restricted.

Either we pay to help educate and employ our citizens, or we pay for them to go to jail, or we arm ourselves whenever we walk the streets and life can be like your middle school gym class forever, only with more death and less noogies for the fat kid.

First of all, nobody in America is trapped into being poor. There are a million ways to get out of being poor but it takes effort. The problem is we've subsidized the lack of effort and encouraged folks not to make the effort. Until that changes we'll have an entire group (that gets bigger every year) of people who are "poor."

Taxes have little to do with that except that fact that the money those folks are paid has to come from somewhere. I personally do not want to incentivize being poor. I really don't want to penalize those who've worked hard to get something by taking away their money to give it to the poor. That's not American - it's socialist. We're not socialists here.

The argument I always see brought up is "we need that money." I'd have to argue against the need. We need people to get their own money. The rich are doing that. The poor are not.

People like me channel their earnings into the 15% capital gains tax bracket - and then we farm our losses so that we never pay the 15% and use 3k pa losses against our other taxes at our marginal rate.

Buffet does the same.

However if a middle class person makes top rate tax bracket income one year and then makes nothing the next year because they are unemployed, they can't claim the low/nil earnings of one year against a future or past year

People who make money from investments are pampered to death in the USA while the wage slaves are at the mercy of their changing circumstances

..and the best thing is it screws up the statistics so it look like investors are in a high band when really its the tip of the iceberg and most of their earnings are hidden/offset before they even make it to the 1040 form

I spend 6 hours most days in making it work like that for me

The middle class pays barely any taxes anyway. I always find it funny that the argument is "how taxed the middle class is and how much of a burden it is upon them" when in reality, it's a couple thousand dollars a year.

Plain and simple, if you can't live in America without a couple thousand dollars a year, you're doing it wrong!

Why should the rich pay extra taxes? Simple, they more than any other group, thanks to their own greed, created the mess the United States finds itself in today. Poor people simply don't have the means to pay anything, because of all the virtual taxes they must pay to our elite just to get by in America today.

Doesn't the middle class get up and go to work every day too because of greed?

If you think about it, they could live well within their means by working minimum wage jobs close to home and only having children when they can afford to do so. But nope. Everyone wants a big cookie-cutter house in teh suburbs, two cars, and several kids. That is not living within your means. That is getting into debt for 30+ years and then working to pay it off.

Poor people also seem to have plenty of money for things they don't need. The fact is America's "poor" really aren't poor. They too have lived an entire life of living beyond their means.

The rich didn't overborrow and overextend their credit to buy things they could not afford - the poor and middle classes did.

Bingo.

You couldn't make bond?

My bond was $250,000 so, no, I couldn't make it.

After a few weeks, and after the "victims" didn't show to court a few times the judge reduced it to $1200 and I made it out but had to stay on electronic monitoring/house arrest for another six weeks. The really f'd up part was I couldn't stay at my house since it was within the range of the "victim's" house. There's another cost that I was never reimbursed for.

[웃 910]

My bond was $250,000 so, no, I couldn't make it.

After a few weeks, and after the "victims" didn't show to court a few times the judge reduced it to $1200 and I made it out but had to stay on electronic monitoring/house arrest for another six weeks. The really f'd up part was I couldn't stay at my house since it was within the range of the "victim's" house. There's another cost that I was never reimbursed for.

You know they have bond companies that will get you out for 10% even if the judge doesn't give you a 10% bond...But, 10% of $250,000 is a bond I wouldn't be able to make, and I'm sure most people couldn't either. Maybe you could have put your house up as a guarantee you'd show up to court...

I was on house arrest once. I think it cost me $10/day.

[웃 910]

"Those reporting adjusted gross income of more than $250,000 to the IRS are projected to make up 2 percent of households next year, when the new president will take office. Those folks will earn 24.1 percent of all income, and pay 43.6 percent of all personal federal income taxes, the Tax Policy Center figures. Under either Obama or Clinton, they might pay even more."

I guess another way of looking at it is there is a 100 slice pizza that represents taxpayers....The top 2 percent (2 people) walk into the room and have to pay for 43.6 of the slices..The other 98 people split the tab on the remaining 56.4 slices but most of those 98 people don't pay a dime...They just get free pizza

Edited September 23, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[mawilson 2,133]

Basically you have a 100 slice Bush Tax Cut Extension pizza.

2 people (2% the population) walk in and eat 19 slices (9.5 slices each)....The remaining 98 people have to share 81 slices. Not even 1 slice per person.

Is this an accurate assessment?

No, it's more like this:

2 people have big pizza ovens and use them to make big pizzas.

98 people have small and medium sized pizza ovens and they make small and medium size pizzas.

Obama wants to take a slice from the big guys and nothing from the small and medium guys, even though 98 small and medium slices add up to a lot more than 2 big slices.

He calls it "shared sacrifice".

[slim 1,525]

You know they have bond companies that will get you out for 10% even if the judge doesn't give you a 10% bond...But, 10% of $250,000 is a bond I wouldn't be able to make, and I'm sure most people couldn't either. Maybe you could have put your house up as a guarantee you'd show up to court...

I was on house arrest once. I think it cost me $10/day.

For me, there was no 10% and even coming up with 10% of that wouldn't have been possible. I don't own a house so that wouldn't work either.

I forget what the house arrest cost but they couldn't charge me anything because my charges were dropped. Funny how some poster on here still thinks I owe something when the state said, "you don't have to pay because the charges were dropped."

My costs from house arrest came from the fact that I was sitting at an apartment that wasn't mine and couldn't work. The county allowed me something like six hours a day on Wed/Fri for "job hunting" but that was the only time I could leave. Try getting a job when telling the employer "well, I can't come in for an interview because I'm on house arrest. I haven't been convicted of a crime but I have to wait until after the trial to really let you know what's going on. I'll let you know when I do. In the mean time, can I come in on Wednesday for an interview?... Hello? ....... Hello?"

I'm not sure how someone is supposed to stay out of trouble when they're not allowed to work or leave the house. They say, "well, you are allowed to work" and that's true, but after a few weeks in jail and a few weeks of sitting around the house doing nothing, it's pretty hard to find gainful employment - especially with the story that has to be told to each employer who happens to call back.

[Captain Oates 911]

No, it's more like this:

2 people have big pizza ovens and use them to make big pizzas.

98 people have small and medium sized pizza ovens and they make small and medium size pizzas.

Obama wants to take a slice from the big guys and nothing from the small and medium guys, even though 98 small and medium slices add up to a lot more than 2 big slices.

He calls it "shared sacrifice".

That's a great example of how a progressive tax system works. Every country in the developed world has a progressive tax system. The reason of course is that an ounce of pizza from one of the small oven guys is more of a hit to him than an ounce from a big oven guy

'

A 'flat tax' is code for a non progressive tax system where a person earning 50kpa pays the same tax as a person earning 50 million pa because they both spend 40kpa on necessities which are sales taxed. Food, heating, housing, health care, has a base cost and cannot be avoided.

The rich can then buy their yachts and planes in low tax countries

Flat taxes are only ever advocated by right wingers and they are supported by the uneducated poor/middle class who like things to be made simple for them - they don't even realize that a flat tax benefits rich people disproportionally

You can sell anything to 80% of people if you say it is easy to understand and simple. That's why payday loans are successful.

Its easy

That is why the poor get poorer and the rich get richer - its a question of intellectual curiosity and education and effort to understand how things work. Most people don't have any of these attributes, remain ignorant, vote for a flat tax and right wingers and rich people (hoping to gain a crumb from their table - as if they cared) and live and die in financial stress

It has always been so - the poor are always with us - the question is whose fault is it ?

In those States where the right wing discourage education in order to keep the upper hand, its clearly the fault of the right.

In those States where the poor are offered every assistance and reject it in order to go get tattoos and drugs and booze, its clearly the fault of the poor

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

No, it's more like this:

2 people have big pizza ovens and use them to make big pizzas.

98 people have small and medium sized pizza ovens and they make small and medium size pizzas.

Obama wants to take a slice from the big guys and nothing from the small and medium guys, even though 98 small and medium slices add up to a lot more than 2 big slices.

He calls it "shared sacrifice".

Great analogy.

Lets do the two extremes. Lets use a family of 2.

So the family with the big oven can make a 20" pizza. They can eat about 1/3 of it.

The family with the small oven can make an 8" pizza. They ate it all and are still slightly hungry.

I'd hate to take away a slice of that 8" pizza.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Sousuke

[mawilson 2,133]

Great analogy.

Lets do the two extremes. Lets use a family of 2.

So the family with the big oven can make a 20" pizza. They can eat about 1/3 of it.

The family with the small oven can make an 8" pizza. They ate it all and are still slightly hungry.

I'd hate to take away a slice of that 8" pizza.

But the family with the big oven worked hard to afford that big expensive oven. Or maybe they inherited it from their parents, doesn't really matter - someone worked hard for it.

What matters is that the pizzas their oven makes are theirs - the direct (or indirect) fruit of their labor.

Edited September 23, 2011 by mawilson

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

But the family with the big oven worked hard to afford that big expensive oven. Or maybe they inherited it from their parents, doesn't really matter - someone worked hard for it.

What matters is that the pizzas their oven makes are theirs - the direct (or indirect) fruit of their labor.

I'm sure they did. They probably sent their oven to China.