Public Option.

[tuff bob]

They should rename the "public option" to the "freedom option"

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by RQA

GRR is always happy to tax somebody else at a higher rate than he pays.

"rqa" always making statements that I punk with the actual facts.

In 1955, IRS records indicated the 400 richest people in the country were worth an average $12.6 million, adjusted for inflation. In 2006, the 400 richest increased their average to $263 million, representing an epochal shift of wealth upward in the U.S.

In 1955, the richest tier paid an average 51.2 percent of their income in taxes under a progressive federal income tax that included loopholes. By 2006, the richest paid only 17.2 percent of their income in taxes.

In 1955, the proportion of federal income from corporate taxes was 33 percent; by 2003, it decreased to 7.4 percent. Today, the top taxpayers pay the same percentage of their incomes in taxes as those making $50,000 to $75,000, although they doubled their share of total U.S. income.

"Over the past 30 years, the income of the top one percent, adjusted for inflation, doubled: the top one-tenth of one percent tripled, and the one-one-hundredth quadrupled," says Pizzigati. "Meanwhile, the average income of the bottom 90 percent has gone down slightly. This is a stunning transformation."

Please, rqa and the other righties, explain how this is a "good trend" for Americans.

[Krazykyle]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

"rqa" always making statements that I punk with the actual facts.



Please, rqa and the other righties, explain how this is a "good trend" for Americans.

Where is this data from, I'd like to read to source prior to a response.

and I know it's the IRS, but I am not completely understanding his wording.

The top 400 wealthiest Americans have an average net worth of $263 million? That doesn't seem accurate.

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by Krazykyle

Where is this data from, I'd like to read to source prior to a response.

and I know it's the IRS, but I am not completely understanding his wording.

The top 400 wealthiest Americans have an average net worth of $263 million? That doesn't seem accurate.

Wealth Inequality Destroys US Ideals

[GRR Spartan]

Some folks just can't come to grips with the fact the wealthiest of all Americans have worked very hard to pay less and less in taxes and have bamboozled other rubes to carry the water for them.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

wealthiest of all Americans have worked very hard to pay less and less in taxes

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

In 1955, the richest tier paid an average 51.2 percent of their income in taxes under a progressive federal income tax that included loopholes. By 2006, the richest paid only 17.2 percent of their income in taxes.

During eight years of the Bush Administration, the 400 richest Americans, who now own more than the bottom 150 million Americans, increased their net worth by $700 billion

[GRR Spartan]

Like bob falls into that high rate.

I have to hand it to them. We've got people driving 10 year old cars and living in double wides protesting taxes because they have been snookered into thinking that if the top 5% pay the same rate as they did under Bill Clinton it will somehow result in their getting screwed.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

We've got people driving 10 year old cars and living in double wides protesting taxes because they have been snookered into thinking that if the top 5% pay the same rate as they did under Bill Clinton it will somehow result in their getting screwed.

will the other 95% pay the same rate too?

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

Like bob falls into that high rate.

I have to hand it to them. We've got people driving 10 year old cars and living in double wides protesting taxes because they have been snookered into thinking that if the top 5% pay the same rate as they did under Bill Clinton it will somehow result in their getting screwed.

Originally Posted by tuff bob

will the other 95% pay the same rate too?

bob continues to prove your point.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by MSU '73

bob continues to prove your point.

I continue to prove my point, the "non rich" don't want to pay Clinton Tax Rates either, since they pay a far lower share (if any) of the federal tax burden

[Redwingenator]

Flat Tax.

[Redwingenator]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

I always laugh when folks like redwingenerator are so vociferous in their support of the Top 1 %. It shows those folks know how to spread their propaganda to protect themselves.

I believe in liberty and a person's right to keep the fruits of their labor. The more money people are allowed to keep the more liberty they have. Every tax and every government program strips the people of their liberty bit by bit.

It is insane that a person can spend 10 years in college to earn an esteemed degree putting their life on hold; then start their own business and struggle keeping the lights on for years. When the financial struggle and hard work finally starts to pay off financially, the government is there for their piece of the pie and liberals are screaming that the wealthy need to pay their fair share. Do these people not see the hard work and struggle that successful people go through to get to a successful point? The answer is no, they only see that they don't have as much as they wealthy guy and it's not "fair." The world is against them and the wealthy are the ones keeping them from achieving what they "deserve." Liberals are like that spoiled little brat that is screaming in the store because he wants a new toy, he wants a candy bar, he wants and wants because he "deserves" it.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by Redwingenator

IWhen the financial struggle and hard work finally starts to pay off financially, the government is there for their piece of the pie and liberals are screaming that the wealthy need to pay their fair share. Do these people not see the hard work and struggle that successful people go through to get to a successful point?

No, all they see is that the successful person was "lucky".

[GRR Spartan]

redwingenerator.

My late uncle built a thriving business and retired a multi-millionaire in little Greenville MI starting his tool and die business in the late 1940'a and finally selling out in the early 1970's. How the hell did he manage to do that when folks like you would have us believe the today's taxes are too high yet his tax rates for the entire time were at least double what today's business owners pay.

Like I told Lars, the average small business owner salary was $230K/year in 2006. The tax being talked about kicks in with individuals making $500K /yr as an individual or $1 million as a family (couple). Add to that if any small business owner can't get below that $500K personal income threshold he or she should fire their account

[Redwingenator]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

redwingenerator.

My late uncle built a thriving business and retired a multi-millionaire in little Greenville MI starting his tool and die business in the late 1940'a and finally selling out in the early 1970's. How the hell did he manage to do that when folks like you would have us believe the today's taxes are too high yet his tax rates for the entire time were at least double what today's business owners pay.

Like I told Lars, the average small business owner salary was $230K/year in 2006. The tax being talked about kicks in with individuals making $500K /yr as an individual or $1 million as a family (couple). Add to that if any small business owner can't get below that $500K personal income threshold he or she should fire their account

[GRR Spartan]

I get the fact you want no government. So I suggest you have bake sales for defense contractors and then I'll start to sympathize.

I'm over 50. I have seen the wealthiest of all Americans get the biggest tax cuts in our history over the last 75 years. Yet I still hear the myth we can tax cut out way out of everything. We have a progressive income tax because you cannot have a thriving economy without a thriving middle class. Neither of us until recently have ever experienced a shrinking middle class at its current speed. That alone will kill the future.

A public option will keep the insurance companies from further culling out all the high risk people they want to dump on the dreaded government assistance people rail about because they will be included in a public option you or I can join. So places like my late uncle's tool and die operation would be able to buy in at the same rates his customer who employed 1500 would get.

[RQA]

I said:
GRR is always happy to tax somebody else at a higher rate than he pays.

Originally Posted by MSU '73

"rqa" always making statements that I punk with the actual facts.

73 goes on to this cut and paste:

In 1955, IRS records indicated the 400 richest people in the country were worth an average $12.6 million, adjusted for inflation. In 2006, the 400 richest increased their average to $263 million, representing an epochal shift of wealth upward in the U.S.

In 1955, the richest tier paid an average 51.2 percent of their income in taxes under a progressive federal income tax that included loopholes. By 2006, the richest paid only 17.2 percent of their income in taxes.

In 1955, the proportion of federal income from corporate taxes was 33 percent; by 2003, it decreased to 7.4 percent. Today, the top taxpayers pay the same percentage of their incomes in taxes as those making $50,000 to $75,000, although they doubled their share of total U.S. income.

"Over the past 30 years, the income of the top one percent, adjusted for inflation, doubled: the top one-tenth of one percent tripled, and the one-one-hundredth quadrupled," says Pizzigati. "Meanwhile, the average income of the bottom 90 percent has gone down slightly. This is a stunning transformation."

Please explain to me how your nifty little cut and past has anything to do with GRR wanting to tax his neighbors but not himself?

Please, rqa and the other righties, explain how this is a "good trend" for Americans.

Even though your cut and paste has NOTHING to do with my comment about GRR's taxing philosophy, I will offer the following comments about it.

1. The tax policies of the 50's which by implication you wish to re-impliment resulted in a stagnant economy and the election of JFK. He recognized the problem and promptly cut those high marginal rates.

2. I think corporate taxes should be eliminated.

3. The reason the wealthy of the world can pay a lower tax rate on overall income is, of course, due to the lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and the availability of things like tax-free munis. Go ahead and tax that income at ordinary income tax rates and see what effect that would have on the economy.

4. It has been pointed out many times here that the rich are paying and increasingly high proportion of federal taxes. It would seem that you would be happy about it, yet it is clear that what you really want is to punish the rich by taking at least 50% of their income no matter what effect that might have on our economy.

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by RQA

I said:
GRR is always happy to tax somebody else at a higher rate than he pays.


73 goes on to this cut and paste: Please explain to me how your nifty little cut and past has anything to do with GRR wanting to tax his neighbors but not himself?

Even though your cut and paste has NOTHING to do with my comment about GRR's taxing philosophy, I will offer the following comments about it.

1. The tax policies of the 50's which by implication you wish to re-impliment resulted in a stagnant economy and the election of JFK. He recognized the problem and promptly cut those high marginal rates.

2. I think corporate taxes should be eliminated.

3. The reason the wealthy of the world can pay a lower tax rate on overall income is, of course, due to the lower tax rates on capital gains, dividends and the availability of things like tax-free munis. Go ahead and tax that income at ordinary income tax rates and see what effect that would have on the economy.

4. It has been pointed out many times here that the rich are paying and increasingly high proportion of federal taxes. It would seem that you would be happy about it, yet it is clear that what you really want is to punish the rich by taking at least 50% of their income no matter what effect that might have on our economy.

If you can't figure out what GRR said, I can't help you. You are beyond help.

1. GDP in the 50's grew 51.1% the total decade, in adjusted dollars. GDP in the 60's grew 52.2%, in spite of massive spending on the Vietnam war. Hardly an increase at all. Plus:

A change in monetary policy probably had a good deal to do with the expansion. From the end of 1959 to the end of 1962, the money supply (M1, which seemed to be a significant measure at the time) increased at an annual rate of 1.8%. From 1962 to 1969 the annual rate of increase was 4.7%.

So, RQA, once again the FACTS punk your delusions.

2. No corporate taxes = but then, what else is new from "rqa".

3. Capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income. Don't expect you to understand.

4. Duh. The rich are paying a large percentage of taxes, because their wealth is literally skyrocketing while the lower 60-90% are stagnant, at best. That was factually shown in what I posted. Evidently you did not make the connection. Again, no surprise.

You righties are beyond help. You don't have a ****ing clue into what is going on.

[GRR Spartan]

The hard line "conservatives" live in an economic fantasy world. The are even dragging out Dr. Laffer to tell anyone who will listen that he was right but it just wasn't done properly last time.

Dr. Laffer got half of it right. Cutting taxes including income, capital gains on the wealthiest Americans did allow them to retain more wealth. But the second half of the formula (the part about the wealth subsequently trickling down) never came to pass.

Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 tried to balance this by adding public sector jobs to keep the illusion of growth. Clinton raised taxes for those at the top and two things happened. The economy grew and there were more private sector jobs added than public sector job in his 8 years. Bush2 cuts taxes again and adds more public sector jobs vs private sector jobs.

Along with tax increases to Clinton levels I also favor addressing the Alternative minimum tax by adjusting it to inflation to reflect 2009 dollars and than having an annual adjustment based on inflation. That's something neither party wants to address.

As soon as someone can show me how a shrinking middle class can recover while paying out more and more of their income in health care costs to private insurance companies that are increasing faster than any additional taxes. Median US household income is about $51K/yr. A public option gives all families to pick and choose rather than being locked in to a system that can refuse coverage if you change jobs or make Cobra payments so high you choose between home and insurance.

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

A public option gives all families to pick and choose rather than being locked in to a system that can refuse coverage if you change jobs or make Cobra payments so high you choose between home and insurance.

How does the public option reduce costs?

[ninowesco]

Originally Posted by tuff bob

How does the public option reduce costs?

it will end the price fixing that has gone on for 50 years

something anti-trust should have addressed 10 years ago

[GRR Spartan]

bob always has questions, never any solutions. Guys like him keep jobs for years by doing very little because like Chance the gardener everyone thinks those questions shroud deep thought.

[ninowesco]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

bob always has questions, never any solutions. Guys like him keep jobs for years by doing very little because like Chance the gardener everyone thinks those questions shroud deep thought.

speak for yourself my friend

I am under no impression that he thinks deeply about anything

[tuff bob]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

bob always has questions, never any solutions.

I've given my solutions multiple times.

1) end anti-trust;
2) end the prohibition of selling across state lines;
3) end government regulation on what must be covered by insurance; beyond catastrophic health care, much like the way we buy auto insurance;
4) equalize the tax deductibility between insurance bought by employers vs insurance bought by individuals;
5) [still thinking about this one] only allow the portion of insurance that covers catastrophic healthcare to be deductable. the portion of insurance that covers routine healthcare should be taxed;
6) consider tort reform;
7) allow health insurance contracts be bought over many years, much like we buy life insurance (if there are legal reasons why that is not possible)
8) all children should be insurable at birth (no pre-ex's at birth)

Nothing cuts prices like competition, and all of these policies will encourage people to take control of their healthcare and shop around for routine healthcare, while not worrying about catastrophic issues