5 Facts About the Wealthiest One Percent of Americans

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Yet they pay 38 percent of all federal income taxes.

So much for 'fairness'.

[Leatherneck 693]

Statistically, it seems the top tax rates discourage higher pay at the top bracket FYI. (1940-2010)

My personal preference is for higher income taxes and lower corporate taxes.

Why is it your "personal preference" for higher income taxes? Is that preference for higher income taxes for you or for those earning more than you?

I'm for lower income taxes for everyone and lower corporate taxes to attract more foreign investment to America. Of course, lower taxes are useless when politicians/bureaucrats are not good stewards of taxpayer money and continue to spend money wrecklessly.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Leatherneck

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Why is it your "personal preference" for higher income taxes? Is that preference for higher income taxes for you or for those earning more than you?

I'm for lower income taxes for everyone and lower corporate taxes to attract more foreign investment to America. Of course, lower taxes are useless when politicians/bureaucrats are not good stewards of taxpayer money and continue to spend money wrecklessly.

It is my conclusion that a combination of high income tax and low corporate tax will maximize employment.

[Leatherneck 693]

It is my conclusion that a combination of high income tax and low corporate tax will maximize employment.

Ok, I understand it is your conclusion and I get one component of the combination, which is lower corporate taxes.

I'm trying to understand the "high income tax" component of the combination.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Ok, I understand it is your conclusion and I get one component of the combination, which is lower corporate taxes.

I'm trying to understand the "high income tax" component of the combination.

High income tax at the highest tier suppresses the highest wages (you can see this by comparing the top tax rate with top level income from 1940 to the present...they directly correlate) - meaning more funds for corporate investment and or more payroll for mid and lower levels.

[mawilson 2,133]

Ok, I understand it is your conclusion and I get one component of the combination, which is lower corporate taxes.

I'm trying to understand the "high income tax" component of the combination.

He probably thinks that high marginal tax rates for individuals will discourage passing

profits through to the individual owners and encourage storing up more profits inside

corporations. We're already seeing this trend with holding companies which contain

ever-increasing amounts of investment capital.

[Leatherneck 693]

He probably thinks that high marginal tax rates for individuals will discourage passing

profits through to the individual owners and encourage storing up more profits inside

corporations. We're already seeing this trend with holding companies which contain

ever-increasing amounts of investment capital.

Thanks for the clarification, I hope he will provide some detailed insight on his conclusion. And if that is what he means, we can see this is not leading to more employment. Companies use many variables with regards to taking on more labor. For one, there needs to be demand for the service or product to justify new hires.

[mawilson 2,133]

Thanks for the clarification, I hope he will provide some detailed insight on his conclusion. And if that is what he means, we can see this is not leading to more employment. Companies use many variables with regards to taking on more labor. For one, there needs to be demand for the service or product to justify new hires.

I agree with you, I don't think higher taxes of any kind will "maximize" employment.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Thanks for the clarification, I hope he will provide some detailed insight on his conclusion. And if that is what he means, we can see this is not leading to more employment. Companies use many variables with regards to taking on more labor. For one, there needs to be demand for the service or product to justify new hires.

Actually I don't think it will maximize employment in the short term - afterall, corporations have large holdings already and are not spending it in the short term. But long term I think it will go a long to balance out the market.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Sousuke

[Leatherneck 693]

I agree with you, I don't think higher taxes of any kind will "maximize" employment.

[Leatherneck 693]

Actually I don't think it will maximize employment in the short term - afterall, corporations have large holdings already and are not spending it in the short term. But long term I think it will go a long to balance out the market.

But the need for capital to be deployed in the market place to create demand for goods and services is now, thus hopefully having some impact on employment. However, I understand your point.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But the need for capital to be deployed in the market place to create demand for goods and services is now, thus hopefully having some impact on employment. However, I understand your point.

Our economy is mostly consumer driven and that means, the more money the average worker earns is more buying power for them and they will spend it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Our economy is mostly consumer driven and that means, the more money the average worker earns is more buying power for them and they will spend it.

Raises wages directly increases prices, causing inflation, and under progressive income taxes, actually decreases consumer buying power, thereby reducing demand in the long run. Ideally, the market should set prices, and determine wages, based on supply and demand.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Raises wages directly increases prices, causing inflation, and under progressive income taxes, actually decreases consumer buying power, thereby reducing demand in the long run. Ideally, the market should set prices, and determine wages, based on supply and demand.

By that same token, if you charged your customers only a penny/hour for your labor, people would have more money to pay for more of your labor, right?

minimum wage increase would boost earnings for 13 million American workers—9.8 percent of the workforce.

• Twelve million adult wage-earners, 80 percent of the minimum wage-earning population, will directly benefit from a minimum wage increase.

• Seven million families with children—46 percent of the total low wage-earning families with children—currently receive all of their earnings from minimum wage jobs.

• Nine million women (59 percent of minimum wage earners) and six million people of color (40 percent of minimum wage earners) will directly benefit from a minimum wage increase.

• Raising the minimum wage will increase annual earnings to $15,000 from $10,700. Without this increase, a family of three supported by one minimum wage earner will live roughly $5,400 below the federal poverty line.

• At the 350 largest public companies, the average CEO total direct compensation was $11.6 million in 2005. At this rate of compensation, it takes the average CEO only one hour and 55 minutes to earn the annual pay of a minimum wage worker.

The minimum wage increase will not harm our economy.

• The minimum wage increase will not cause price inflation. In Arizona, for example, the total cost of the wage increases is equal to 0.08 percent of total sales. The average business can fully cover the cost of the minimum wage by increasing revenue by less than 0.1 percent.

• The minimum wage increase will not destroy job growth. Between 1997 and 2003, small business employment increased by 9.4 percent in higher minimum wage states, compared to 6.6 percent in states at the federal level.

• The minimum wage increase will not shut down small businesses. Between 1998 and 2003, the number of small businesses increased by 5.5 percent in higher minimum wage states, compared to 4.2 percent in states at the federal minimum wage level.

Raising the minimum wage is a progressive issue that resonates with the American public and bridges the partisan divide.

• A 2006 opinion poll found that 83 percent of Americans support an increase in the federal minimum wage.

• A decade of federal inaction has prompted 29 states (including D.C.) to raise the minimum wage above $5.15.

• The minimum wage is an opportunity for bipartisanship. In 2006, the governors and state legislatures of California, Michigan, and Pennsylvania worked across party lines to raise the minimum wage.

• In 2006, the minimum wage ballot initiatives had a “6-0” winning record in six states that voted for George Bush in 2000 and 2004. The minimum wage presents an issue that can unite, rather than divide, America.

Click here to see an interactive map with minimum wage breakdowns by state, year, and wage levels.

Endnotes

1. Economic Policy Institute, Minimum Wage Issue Guide, Nov. 2006

2. Annual calculation assumes a 40-hour work week and 52 weeks of work (2080 hours per year). Center for American Progress, “The Gap Between CEOs and America’s Middle Class Widened in 2005,” April 13, 2006

3. Center for American Progress, Economic Analysis of the Arizona Minimum Wage Proposal, Oct. 30, 2006

4. Center for American Progress, Good for Business, May 2006

5. Ibid.

6. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Maximum Support for Raising the Minimum, April 19, 2006

http://www.americanprogress.org/pressroom/releases/2007/01/min_wage.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

By that same token, if you charged your customers only a penny/hour for your labor, people would have more money to pay for more of your labor, right?

I set my hourly rate based on how much I want to make, versus how much I want to work: Supply and demand.