NO APPLE CRITICISM ALLOWED!!
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: ZnU on 19 Jul 2010 01:01 In article <i20fg9$kgq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Tim Murray <no-spam(a)thankyou.com> wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > Thanks to the Republicans engineering the biggest redistribution of > > wealth in American history from the pockets of the middle class majority > > to the pockets of the (already) richest 2%. > > You gotta be kidding. Redistribution is a core Socialist theme. The market, if left unchecked, naturally concentrates wealth at the top, ultimately reducing efficiency and undermining democracy. Republicans cry about 'redistribution' and 'socialism' whenever someone tries to prevent this. And they've won over the last 30 years. Tax burdens on the rich have dropped substantially, and the gap between the rich and everyone else has widened. -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: Tim Murray on 19 Jul 2010 01:24 ZnU wrote: > In article <i20fg9$kgq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Tim Murray <no-spam(a)thankyou.com> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> Thanks to the Republicans engineering the biggest redistribution of >>> wealth in American history from the pockets of the middle class majority >>> to the pockets of the (already) richest 2%. >> >> You gotta be kidding. Redistribution is a core Socialist theme. > > The market, if left unchecked, naturally concentrates wealth at the top, > ultimately reducing efficiency and undermining democracy. Republicans > cry about 'redistribution' and 'socialism' whenever someone tries to > prevent this. You mean, tries to prevent letting a person keep what they earn? Has Socialism worked well in Europe? > And they've won over the last 30 years. Tax burdens on the rich have > dropped substantially, and the gap between the rich and everyone else > has widened. > And they've allowed more and more redistribution schemes.
From: ZnU on 19 Jul 2010 01:46 In article <i20nj3$i35$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Tim Murray <no-spam(a)thankyou.com> wrote: > ZnU wrote: > > In article <i20fg9$kgq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > Tim Murray <no-spam(a)thankyou.com> wrote: > > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>> Thanks to the Republicans engineering the biggest redistribution > >>> of wealth in American history from the pockets of the middle > >>> class majority to the pockets of the (already) richest 2%. > >> > >> You gotta be kidding. Redistribution is a core Socialist theme. > > > > The market, if left unchecked, naturally concentrates wealth at the > > top, ultimately reducing efficiency and undermining democracy. > > Republicans cry about 'redistribution' and 'socialism' whenever > > someone tries to prevent this. > > You mean, tries to prevent letting a person keep what they earn? Wealth is created within social contexts, not by isolated individuals. > Has Socialism worked well in Europe? "Socialism" is not a particularly specific term. There are some European countries in which policies that could be described as "socialist" have worked quite well. > > And they've won over the last 30 years. Tax burdens on the rich > > have dropped substantially, and the gap between the rich and > > everyone else has widened. > > And they've allowed more and more redistribution schemes. See http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/11/narrow-tax-burden/ The tax burden on the rich has fallen sharply over the last 30 years. And the share of pre-tax income earned by the top 10% is higher than it has been in a hundred years -- and much, much higher than during the decades today's conservatives seem to hold up as a template for an ideal society. -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: -hh on 19 Jul 2010 07:31 ZnU <z...(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > In article <i20nj3$i3...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Tim Murray <no-s...(a)thankyou.com> wrote: > > ZnU wrote: > > > In article <i20fg9$kg...(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > > Tim Murray <no-s...(a)thankyou.com> wrote: > > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > > >>> Thanks to the Republicans engineering the biggest redistribution > > >>> of wealth in American history from the pockets of the middle > > >>> class majority to the pockets of the (already) richest 2%. > > > >> You gotta be kidding. Redistribution is a core Socialist theme. > > > > The market, if left unchecked, naturally concentrates wealth at the > > > top, ultimately reducing efficiency and undermining democracy. > > > Republicans cry about 'redistribution' and 'socialism' whenever > > > someone tries to prevent this. > > > You mean, tries to prevent letting a person keep what they earn? > > Wealth is created within social contexts, not by isolated individuals. > > > Has Socialism worked well in Europe? > > "Socialism" is not a particularly specific term. There are some European > countries in which policies that could be described as "socialist" have > worked quite well. > > > > And they've won over the last 30 years. Tax burdens on the rich > > > have dropped substantially, and the gap between the rich and > > > everyone else has widened. > > > And they've allowed more and more redistribution schemes. > > Seehttp://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/02/11/narrow-tax-burden/ > > The tax burden on the rich has fallen sharply over the last 30 years. > And the share of pre-tax income earned by the top 10% is higher than it > has been in a hundred years -- and much, much higher than during the > decades today's conservatives seem to hold up as a template for an ideal > society. Plus there's plenty of tax loopholes. Here's Warren Buffet's comments on it (2007): http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece "Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent." Probably a big part of Buffet's observation is that the current (since 2003) tax rate on long term Capital Gains is only 15%. Plus, what appears to be missing from the above chart is the inclusion of hidden taxes, in the form of "Use Fees" and other consumption- based: taxes on one's gasoline, telephone, utilities, automobile registration, clothing, etc. Use Fees are essentially a regressive tax, since they constitute a larger percentage of one's income as you go down in income. As such, the real rates of taxation aren't as immediately evident. -hh
From: Kurt Ullman on 19 Jul 2010 08:56
In article <znu-73888B.01011519072010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > And they've won over the last 30 years. Tax burdens on the rich have > dropped substantially, and the gap between the rich and everyone else > has widened. First of all half of the households in the US pay no taxes. Indded most of those actually get money back from the feds and have a NEGATIVE tax rate. Secondly it is patently false. IRS data shows that in 2007�the most recent data available�the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html BTW: The negative income tax balances out most of the Social Security taxes through things like Earned Income Credit. The recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) study released last year showing that the U.S.�not France or Sweden�has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation. -- I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator and name it after the IRS. Robert Bakker, paleontologist |