Why is the only solution proposed by the left soaking the rich.

and supported by both sides in washington

 

No, here in the U.S. we call it RENT, except for the ignorant, who confuse rent with capital. Several hundred years ago Adam Smith broke incomes into three basic components: profits, wages and rents. Profit (interest) is the earnings of capital, wages are the earnings of labor, and rent is the unearned factor. The reason rent is unearned is because it doesn’t stem from production… it is a payment made that doesn’t result in production, and all incomes that come from monopolies fall under the term rent.

No, I have “renamed” nothing. Rent has been applied to unearned income ever since Adam Smith wrote the “Wealth of Nations” several hundred years ago. However, the term has been purposely twisted by those who seek unearned incomes, because the very word exposes them as parasites -- so they have purposely confused the term “rent” with the rightful earnings of capital, which is properly called interest.

When you lease out the homes you own, you receive two different kinds of income. One income is interest for the house (capital), the other income is rent for the land under the house. The income you receive from the house (improvements) is earned (interest), because building the home involved labor, and it wouldn’t exist except for that labor. The income you receive for the land under the home is unearned (rent), because the land already existed, you just have a government issued monopoly privilege over its use.

When you, or anyone else, purchases a home, your payment effected the supply of houses, but it doesn’t effect the supply of land, because the supply of land is fixed -- that is why it is important, in economics, to keep these terms separate. The income you receive from you homes is part producer (interest) income and part parasitical (rent) income. Clear? I would favor taxing you near 100% on your parasitical monopoly (rent) income, and abolish all taxation on your earned (interest) income. And there are many Nobel laureate economists who agree with my position:http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/quotable_nobels.htm

...

 

How is oil harder to find if there are thousands of untapped reservoirs which have not been explored in the America's, Africa and Oceania. Ever time we THINK we are running out of oil we find more oil than ever before.

People are buying more of it than ever before because the cost per barrel have been decreasing. As technology improves you'll be able to use less and less of it than ever before. Ever heard of a Hybrid car? Or what about the D Double Bubble aircraft or MIT Team Designs Airliner which creates aircrafts which uses 70 percent LESS fuel? Those would be examples of "increased efficiency." As technology improves, we find that we are able to use less and less oil to do the same amount of stuff, regardless of how much we buy.

Exponential growth are only for people who don't understand prices and increased efficiency.

Yep, because a Geologist said it then it must be true. We are indeed at our tipping point. Just like in 1882 we found out that we only had 95 million barrels of oil remaining. Or in 1919 when we found out when had at least 20 years of oil remaining. Or in 1950 when found that we had 100 Billion barrels remaining. Or in 1980 when we found that we had 648 Billion Barrels remaining. Or in 1993 we found that we had 999 Billion Barrels remaining. Or in the year 2000 we found that we had over 1 Trillion Barrels remaining. Or in the year 2008 we found that we had over 1.2 Trillion Barrels remaining.

Yep we are at our tipping point because every time we discover we are running out of oil we keep finding out that we have more and more oil than ever before. We will run out of oil pretty soon, just like we did in 1919, 1950, 1980, 1993, 2000 and 2008. I'm sure it'll really happen this time. Maybe...

 

SOLYNDRA!,,,,,,,,aka obama and his donors!!

 

Gross national income:
http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N Table 2.1

Share of income of richest 1%:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_tables_toc.xls Table 1C

If you have sources that show my figures are off, I'd be interested to see them.

Edit: This article from 2010 says that the richest 1% take 24% of the gross national income, so my figure of 18% (the latest I'm aware of from the CBO) may be too low.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/06/us-income-gap-rich-poor-stats-_n_779985.html

 

Because the GOP has spent (in every sense of the word) decades REWARDING the rich and SOAKING everyone else.

 

This thread's a trip. Every election cycle, liberals trot out the class warfare game and practice demogoguery against the very same people that want to create new jobs. LOL
Same (*)(*)(*)(*), different color.

 

The TRUTH paints an entirely different picture than the one liberals lie about each day.

Clinton rates
1998 top 1% paid 34.75% of total income taxes. top 5% paid 53.84%, top 25% paid 82.69%
1999 top 1%-36.18%, top 5% 55.45%, top 25% 83.54%
2000 top 1%-37.42%, top 5% 56.47%, top 25% 84.01%

Bush rates.

2006 Top 1%-39.89%, top 5% 60.14%, top 25% 86.27%
2007 top 1%-40.41%, top 5% 60.61%, top 25% 86.57%
2008 top 1%-38.02%, top 5% 58.72%, top 25% 86.34%

The bottom 50% of income earners paid 4,21% of income tax in 1998 and the bottom 50% of income earners paid 2.7% of income tax in 2008.

While the percentage paid by the rich has increased a bit, the percentage paid by the bottom HALF of income earners has decreased by 44%


2010 round numbers.

The US government collected $898 billion in income taxes.

The top 25% of income earners paid $776 billion of that.

75% of INCOME EARNERS paid less than $150 billion of $900 billion in total income taxes.

These are the collected numbers AFTER all loopholes, deductions and shelters.

That is not FAIR SHARE, that is well ABOVE fair share.

Would it be fair if the top 25% received half the income and paid half the taxes? The top 25% received less than half the income and paid 86+% of the taxes.

odrama's subversive, divisive, class warfare campaign is not only terrible for this nation. It is a complete pack of INTENTIONAL KNOWN lies. He makes errors in his speeches. But his class warfare inciting lies, he knows to be lies.

 

No source. I'm merely saying that your figures doesn't account for a Top 1 percent income threshold which is $350,000. When you take into account of the amount of people in that threshold it's about .350 Trillion in untaxed income. Assuming that people take home the same amount of income, of course it can be much higher.

 

And therein lies the point of the matter and why your analysis is flawed and misleading..

In 2000, income tax revenues were $1004.5 billion representing 49.60%
of all tax revenues.

In 2010 income tax revenues were 898.5 representing only 41.57% of all tax revenues.

The economy grew 47.3% from 2000 to 2010. The share of income of the richest has increased in that time.

So while it may be true that the wealthiest are paying a larger share of income taxes, it is a larger share of a much smaller piece of the overall pie.

 

You would need to take the average, not the minimum threshold, to calculate the amount of untaxed income.

The average income in the top 1% was 1.558 million as of 2005.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/Appendix_tables_toc.xls Table 1C

 

Even still something doesn't seem right. With the amount of people estimated to in the Top 1 percent the untaxed income would still be 1.713 Trillion, not 2.34 Trillion.

 

Its a 2005 vs. current.

In 2005 GNI was 10,485. Its currently 12,577. That's about a 20% increase. Increase the 1.713 by 20% and you get $2.06.

 

Hm...okay.

 

Your entire thesis is flawed. The economy may have grown from 200-2010, but it took a nose dive at the end of the decade. That's why income tax revenue declined. More people were out of work with NO income or those that were working saw reduced income. The wealthy weren't impervious to the financial crash. In fact, they were the hardest hit. That would also account for a reduction in income taxes. They were able to write off some of their huge losses.

 

I'm not sure why there is a difference of .28, could be because of rounding the number of households or difference in the way incomes are measured.

 

SHEIK BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S 2010 income dropped from $6 million in 2009 to $1.7 million in 2010. po' baby!

 

I figure it should be much lower considering the 400 billionaires in the country doesn't accumulate even 1.7 Trillion dollars even if you taxed them at a rate of 100 percent.

Numbers just seemed off to me.

 

That is false. Despite the recession, actual incomes increased between 2000 and 2010

Gross personal income in 2000 was $8,559.4 billion. It is currently $12,373.5 billion.

http://bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Selected=N Table 2.1

The reason income tax revenues are lower is because of the numerous income tax cuts and stimulus tax cuts that were passed.

 

400 billion is just a tiny subset of 1.1 million.

 

Lets play with numbers.

In 1998 we collected $828.6 billion in income tax. The bottom 50% paid 4.91% of that or $40,684,260,000.00

In 2010 we collected $898.5 billion in income tax. The bottom 50% paid 2.7% of that or $24,259,500,000.00

$69.9 billion more collected and $16,425 billion less from the bottom 50%

No good robbing rich, what are they up to paying more?

Numbers are such fun!!

 

Capitalism in practice is a much corporatism as it is free markets. Thanks for pointing that out, even though you didnt recognise it.

I have an idea, why dont you post some stuff that makes sense.

 

Corporatism is in between Capitalism and Fascism/Socialism because of the Governments intervention into the Marketplace but, not directly controlling the Private Businesses themselves. Not quite sure where you find Corporatism to be Capitalism...

 

Name them

really

too little too late

Ok so in 1919 we though there wasnt much oil around. We were only just starting to use the stuff. Geology has improved no end since then. We have had nearly 100 years of effort put into exploration.

Now, lets take a look at a nice graph

 

"Energy will be one of the defining issues of this century. One thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over."

David J. O'Reilly, Chairman & CEO, Chevron Corporation