If they were US would be doomed!
Which country will deploy nuclear warfare ?
- Thread starter alpha85
- Start date
If they were US would be doomed!
By the way: "Upper half" starts from?
Link
Wife is somewhat resistant to the idea (wants to be near family in the area).
You guys given it much thought?
cheers,
Link
I've given it some thought - and think that it is very much more possible for me (now that my kids have grown and left home).
Wife is somewhat resistant to the idea (wants to be near family in the area).
You guys given it much thought?
cheers,
By the way: "Upper half" starts from?
Link
I've given it some thought - and think that it is very much more possible for me (now that my kids have grown and left home).
Wife is somewhat resistant to the idea (wants to be near family in the area).
You guys given it much thought?
cheers,
OK..so basically it works like this:
the more you make, the more you pay...
the more you pay, the more the government gets...
the more the government gets, the less everyone receives...
OR...
As the government works...1% equals 19% ..and a 19% share equals a 37% burden.
BRILLIANT! :2 cents:
I was using a ballpark figure. I knew it was a pretty small portion at the top, but 2%, okay. Plus, your figures look a little fuzzy. Please post sources. Also, even if they are factual, it just proves that there is an even smaller bulk of 7-8 figure earners in the U.S. that are steadily pulling away from the middle/lower classes and shitting on us even more.
BTW, I agree with your first point; states should retain more power, sorta like the Articles of Confederation. But you probably know that the AOC didn't work because of its weak right to tax at the state level. The Federal Government needs to be weakened, definitely.
I've asked this question before and I would like to hear opinions on it:
Which version "suits" you (or describes/determines your philosophy) better?
1. The United States is a prosperous nation.
2. The United States are a prosperous nation.
My post is not aimed just at member ninetysixcavy, but to all Americans on this board....
cheers,
Philbert
Banned
Without a doubt, being from the Republic of Texas, I would go with IS a prosperous Nation. We got Burger King in every state, Taco Hell and Dairy Queen in every small town...this is still a single nation, we are NOT multicultural.
As usual, it's even worse than I state (BTW, graph needs additional context)
I said 96%, pretty close.
BTW, to be fair to Clinton, the median income v. incomes of the Clinton administration versus the Bush administration vary greatly, as well as the stock market (which is a major factor). So it not as simple as "the rich had more under Clinton."
The stock market's value is virtually linear during Clinton's "rich get richer" rise. It's during the increased valuation of jobs and salaries during the .COM boom. A lot of false capital, and resulting income, was created in '97-99. Bush's trend is then easily explained by the job market and resulting balloon popping in salaries. The result is that you had people who had been previously paying 4 or even 5x as much in income taxes during the Clinton administration back to making not much more than others. Most of those people were in the top 1% or 2% ($150,000+) who now make probably well under $100,000/year post-.COM bust.
So this graph should be overlaid against the median and mean incomes of the times. You'll find a linear relation, regardless of who is President. As I've said before, over on conservative boards, they call me a Clinton lover and a Bush basher.
Furthermore, and interesting additive would be to overlay various portions of the stock market's valuation. I think you'd find that linear as well. Again, capital seems to influence income. Most people think the "amount of money" is constant. Sigh.
Yep, as you can see, the top 50% pay 96.7% of all taxes.
I said 96%, pretty close.
BTW, to be fair to Clinton, the median income v. incomes of the Clinton administration versus the Bush administration vary greatly, as well as the stock market (which is a major factor). So it not as simple as "the rich had more under Clinton."
The stock market's value is virtually linear during Clinton's "rich get richer" rise. It's during the increased valuation of jobs and salaries during the .COM boom. A lot of false capital, and resulting income, was created in '97-99. Bush's trend is then easily explained by the job market and resulting balloon popping in salaries. The result is that you had people who had been previously paying 4 or even 5x as much in income taxes during the Clinton administration back to making not much more than others. Most of those people were in the top 1% or 2% ($150,000+) who now make probably well under $100,000/year post-.COM bust.
So this graph should be overlaid against the median and mean incomes of the times. You'll find a linear relation, regardless of who is President. As I've said before, over on conservative boards, they call me a Clinton lover and a Bush basher.
Furthermore, and interesting additive would be to overlay various portions of the stock market's valuation. I think you'd find that linear as well. Again, capital seems to influence income. Most people think the "amount of money" is constant. Sigh.
It's called a progressive tax system ...
The government does not create jobs in a capitalist society.
The more the government taxes "discretionary income," the less there is to invest.
Because 80-90% of "discretionary income" is typically recycled into new investments.
As I stated, only about 10% of the "higher income earners" income is liquid and discretionary after investments.
Many of their non-liquid investments are either taken out of their paycheck before they even get it or automatically deducted from their checking account.
People don't get that, and that's why this nation is "eat the rich" fucked.
Yes, it's called a progressive tax system.
Correct, as the more the government takes out of circulation, the less there is to invest, the less jobs are created.
The government does not create jobs in a capitalist society.
It's called a progressive tax system.
The more the government taxes "discretionary income," the less there is to invest.
Because 80-90% of "discretionary income" is typically recycled into new investments.
As I stated, only about 10% of the "higher income earners" income is liquid and discretionary after investments.
Many of their non-liquid investments are either taken out of their paycheck before they even get it or automatically deducted from their checking account.
People don't get that, and that's why this nation is "eat the rich" fucked.
Response moved to new thread ... The Millionaire Next Door ...
Instead of responding here, I've started a new thread ...
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=112314
Instead of responding here, I've started a new thread ...
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=112314
i pray to god nobody does but.....
America has way to many red tape bullshit rules to work through, we will never ever ever launch first. never. not ever. especially not with this broke dick prez we got right now. he'd sooner see America burn than raise a finger to stop it. in my opinion, north korea is the biggest threat right now, with china in a close number two. they have been buying up all the scrap metal to build their war machine for years now.... thus the price of simple conduit for electrical work going sky high.....
America has way to many red tape bullshit rules to work through, we will never ever ever launch first. never. not ever. especially not with this broke dick prez we got right now. he'd sooner see America burn than raise a finger to stop it. in my opinion, north korea is the biggest threat right now, with china in a close number two. they have been buying up all the scrap metal to build their war machine for years now.... thus the price of simple conduit for electrical work going sky high.....
sigmund1898
Closed Account
NK already has one pointed at the USA as we speak.
Re: It's called a progressive tax system ...
Hm, the posting I'm responding to may be more than a year old, but as the thread was pulled up today, I just now read it for the first time. So I hope you'll excuse it.
I'm just not very good at ignoring false statements and this one
technically is not true.
The government creates a lot of jobs. For example through public invitation to tender (I think it is called that in way in American English), when a new bridge, road or tunnel is to be built.
Without the building and maintenance of infrastructure at least one out of five companies in the building/construction industry could face insolvency.
The state through the executive branch (and thus the government) hires jugdes, teachers, police officers, federal agents, attorneys, state secretaries, public officials of any kind...
As long as a country prospers and its population grows, the state not only hires people to (re)occupy the jobs already created, it also creates new jobs constantly, in its administration, in the educational system, in the military... and even in the economy.
Hm, the posting I'm responding to may be more than a year old, but as the thread was pulled up today, I just now read it for the first time. So I hope you'll excuse it.
I'm just not very good at ignoring false statements and this one
technically is not true.
The government creates a lot of jobs. For example through public invitation to tender (I think it is called that in way in American English), when a new bridge, road or tunnel is to be built.
Without the building and maintenance of infrastructure at least one out of five companies in the building/construction industry could face insolvency.
The state through the executive branch (and thus the government) hires jugdes, teachers, police officers, federal agents, attorneys, state secretaries, public officials of any kind...
As long as a country prospers and its population grows, the state not only hires people to (re)occupy the jobs already created, it also creates new jobs constantly, in its administration, in the educational system, in the military... and even in the economy.
That's not capitalism ...
Which is a real problem, when private industry relies on government. That's not capitalism at all.
i put north korea because their leader is crazy!
i'd go with pakistan cuz of the weak centralized government and thus more chance of a nuke launched without central government awareness. that and the level of hatred between them and india which lies beneath the surface. oh and the level of extreme elements within the country too.
From the poll above I say none will.
I say Quatar will rise to power and kick all yo asses back to the stone age.... then again... maybe not. As I think no one has ever heard of Quatar [sp?] I have though. But only from an old Video Game called FIFA International Soccer [the first FIFA game made in the early 90's].
I is just rippin da pish out of Quatar though. As in that FIFA game Quatar were the shittest team.
PS.
Is it Quatar or Qatar?. Fuck it, Quatar it is.
I say Quatar will rise to power and kick all yo asses back to the stone age.... then again... maybe not. As I think no one has ever heard of Quatar [sp?] I have though. But only from an old Video Game called FIFA International Soccer [the first FIFA game made in the early 90's].
I is just rippin da pish out of Quatar though. As in that FIFA game Quatar were the shittest team.
PS.
Is it Quatar or Qatar?. Fuck it, Quatar it is.
Similar threads
