http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/...ges-for-troops
- CuteOldGuy
- 11-14-2011, 08:48 PM
Now this is a well thought out position. No wonder eastern lawyers are idiots.
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/...ges-for-troops
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/...ges-for-troops
- I B Hankering
- 11-15-2011, 05:06 AM
"The two faces of Alec Baldwin, an actor well known for his liberal views, who joined Occupy Wall Street with the message that 'capitalism is worthwhile'."
- CuteOldGuy
- 11-15-2011, 11:00 PM
- CuteOldGuy
- 11-16-2011, 05:38 PM
This is a good thing. Can't have tradition running amok.
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2...nta-gets-boot/
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2...nta-gets-boot/
- The_Waco_Kid
- 11-16-2011, 10:10 PM
Alec Baldwin is a 1 percenter making millions. and this pompous overrated turd thinks he "identify's" with OWS? Please. didn't that jackass turdmonkey say he'd leave the USA if GW Bush got re-elected? Why is he still here then?
Let Alec Baldwin put his Manhattan penthouse where his money is and give it to OWS. for FREE.
After heavy criticism for his seemingly hypocritical appearance, Baldwin later tweeted: 'I donated all of my fee from Capital One 2 arts charities. They have been gr8 partners in my support of the arts.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1dvtqxvEv
chump change.
In a 2005 letter obtained by Fox 25, Avery writes about a conference he spoke about in Cuba. The theme of his talk: "The Hypocrisy of US Policy Towards Terrorism." It was a speech he says he gave to a crowd including Fidel Castro himself
Read more: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/...#ixzz1dvuyAXUg
and i bet this asshole would have railed against USO care packages to WWII troops.
Let Alec Baldwin put his Manhattan penthouse where his money is and give it to OWS. for FREE.
After heavy criticism for his seemingly hypocritical appearance, Baldwin later tweeted: 'I donated all of my fee from Capital One 2 arts charities. They have been gr8 partners in my support of the arts.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1dvtqxvEv
chump change.
In a 2005 letter obtained by Fox 25, Avery writes about a conference he spoke about in Cuba. The theme of his talk: "The Hypocrisy of US Policy Towards Terrorism." It was a speech he says he gave to a crowd including Fidel Castro himself
Read more: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/...#ixzz1dvuyAXUg
and i bet this asshole would have railed against USO care packages to WWII troops.
- rockbass
- 11-21-2011, 01:14 AM
OWS doesn't want your penthouse
they want you to pay your fair share of taxes, and to only have one vote's worth of influence
Baldwin apparently, and rightly, agrees with that sentiment.
you, on the other hand, seem to think that the richer you are, the more you should have a right to run the country.
they want you to pay your fair share of taxes, and to only have one vote's worth of influence
Baldwin apparently, and rightly, agrees with that sentiment.
you, on the other hand, seem to think that the richer you are, the more you should have a right to run the country.
- Marshall
- 11-21-2011, 11:44 AM
OWS doesn't want your penthouse
they want you to pay your fair share of taxes, and to only have one vote's worth of influence
IRS Data Show Most Millionaires Pay Taxes at Higher Rate Than Middle Class
Published September 20, 2011
| FoxNews.com
And their income taxes make up a significant portion of the federal budget pie.
Data compiled by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center show households pulling in more than $1 million pay about 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes. By contrast, households making between $50,000 and $75,000 pay about 15 percent.
Related Video
Taxes to the Rescue?
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels on whether tax hikes can reduce the deficit
Related Video
Jindal's Take on Obama's Deficit Reduction Plan
Louisiana governor on 'Fox & Friends'
Related Video
What is a Fair Tax on the Wealthy?
Mary Anne Marsh of Dewey Square Group discusses why America’s upper class should pay more classes.
Related Video
Patriotic Millionaires Happy to Pay Higher Taxes
Patriotic Millionaires members Charles Fink and Jeff Gural explain why the rich should pay more in taxes.
The so-called Buffett Rule has become the political centerpiece of the president's deficit-reduction program. Named after Warren Buffett, the provision would ensure people making more than $1 million a year pay taxes at a higher rate than the middle class.
The president proposed the rule after Buffett complained he was paying taxes at a lower rate than his secretary. Democrats said he's not the only one -- according to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's office, 22,000 people who make over $1 million a year pay taxes at a rate of less than 15 percent. According to the IRS, nearly 1,500 households reporting more than $1 million in income paid no federal income taxes in 2009.
That's out of about 236,000 returns for income above $1 million, most of which belong to households paying taxes at a higher rate. And, as would be expected, they contribute a disproportionate share of tax toward federal coffers.
IRS statistics for tax year 2009 show the millionaires -- who make up a fraction of a percent of all taxpayers -- contributed more than 20 percent of total [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]federal [COLOR=blue !important]income [COLOR=blue !important]tax[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] revenue. That's about $180 billion in taxes from millionaires, according to number-crunching from the National Taxpayers Union.
The National Taxpayers Union also found that in 2008 the top 1 percent of American taxpayers paid 38 percent of collections for personal federal income tax while they represented 20 percent of all income.
For those wealthy Americans paying taxes at a seemingly low rate, it could be because they earn income overseas or because a large part of annual income is from investments. Though corporate profits are taxed at 35 percent, in the form of [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]capital [COLOR=blue !important]gains [/COLOR][COLOR=blue !important]and [/COLOR][COLOR=blue !important]dividends[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] they are taxed at 15 percent. Senate testimony in May from the Tax Foundation also showed that for taxpayers making more than $200,000 a year, their salary income made up just 20 percent of national salary income. Much more came from business income.
In total, the Obama deficit-reduction package would seek to raise taxes, mostly on high-income households, by $1.5 trillion over the next decade.
About half of that is from letting the Bush tax cuts expire for households making more than $250,000. Other changes would strip tax breaks for [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]oil [COLOR=blue !important]and [/COLOR][COLOR=blue !important]gas [/COLOR][COLOR=blue !important]companies[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] and other benefits.
The White House would not say how much might be raised from the Buffett Rule or how it would be implemented.
But the Buffett Rule quickly became the rallying cry for the president's plan. In an email to supporters sent Monday night, the campaign urged voters to get the president's back on the plan.
"This proposal makes sure millionaires and billionaires share the responsibility for reducing the deficit," the email said. "The other side is already saying it's 'class warfare' -- that's their rhetorical smokescreen for providing millionaires and billionaires special treatment."
But Republican Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels told Fox News the president's proposal appeared to be "purposely divisive."
"As a practical matter, it's a loser," he said, describing the plan as "hair-of-the-dog economics."
"You know people that have had way too much of something they shouldn't and there's always somebody who says have another one, it'll make you feel better -- it just doesn't work any better in this case," Daniels said.
Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal said the problem is spending and described the president's proposal as not serious.
"He doesn't get it," Jindal told Fox News.
The president's plan was presented as a proposal to the bipartisan "super committee" trying to find at least $1.2 trillion in deficit savings by Thanksgiving.
The plan includes more than just tax hikes. It covers $580 billion in cuts to entitlement and other federal programs, including to Medicare and Medicaid. The president also claimed $1.1 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- a claim that has been dismissed as a budgetary gimmick in the past. If the war savings are counted alongside interest savings and the cuts Congress enacted in August, the president's plan is worth than $4 trillion over the next decade.
While Republicans slammed the proposal as divisive and unworkable, some Democrats applauded the president for asking the wealthy to pay more while shielding Medicare seniors and other [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]entitlement [COLOR=blue !important]program[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] beneficiaries from more severe cutbacks.
"With the wealthiest people in this country becoming wealthier and large corporations enjoying huge profits, it is time that we end tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations and have them pay their fair share," Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in a statement.
"We call on Congress to immediately pass the president's proposal for job-creating investments, to ask the wealthy to start paying their fair share, to focus on the true causes of our long-term deficits, to reject any cuts to Medicaid or Social Security or [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]Medicare [COLOR=blue !important]benefits[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR], and to stop scapegoating federal and postal employees and retirees for problems they did not cause," AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1eMYhCEY8[/COLOR]
Published September 20, 2011
| FoxNews.com
AP
President Obama gestures while speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington Sept. 19.
And their income taxes make up a significant portion of the federal budget pie.
Data compiled by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center show households pulling in more than $1 million pay about 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes. By contrast, households making between $50,000 and $75,000 pay about 15 percent.
Related Video
Taxes to the Rescue?
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels on whether tax hikes can reduce the deficit
Related Video
Jindal's Take on Obama's Deficit Reduction Plan
Louisiana governor on 'Fox & Friends'
Related Video
What is a Fair Tax on the Wealthy?
Mary Anne Marsh of Dewey Square Group discusses why America’s upper class should pay more classes.
Related Video
Patriotic Millionaires Happy to Pay Higher Taxes
Patriotic Millionaires members Charles Fink and Jeff Gural explain why the rich should pay more in taxes.
The so-called Buffett Rule has become the political centerpiece of the president's deficit-reduction program. Named after Warren Buffett, the provision would ensure people making more than $1 million a year pay taxes at a higher rate than the middle class.
The president proposed the rule after Buffett complained he was paying taxes at a lower rate than his secretary. Democrats said he's not the only one -- according to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's office, 22,000 people who make over $1 million a year pay taxes at a rate of less than 15 percent. According to the IRS, nearly 1,500 households reporting more than $1 million in income paid no federal income taxes in 2009.
That's out of about 236,000 returns for income above $1 million, most of which belong to households paying taxes at a higher rate. And, as would be expected, they contribute a disproportionate share of tax toward federal coffers.
IRS statistics for tax year 2009 show the millionaires -- who make up a fraction of a percent of all taxpayers -- contributed more than 20 percent of total [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]federal [COLOR=blue !important]income [COLOR=blue !important]tax[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] revenue. That's about $180 billion in taxes from millionaires, according to number-crunching from the National Taxpayers Union.
The National Taxpayers Union also found that in 2008 the top 1 percent of American taxpayers paid 38 percent of collections for personal federal income tax while they represented 20 percent of all income.
For those wealthy Americans paying taxes at a seemingly low rate, it could be because they earn income overseas or because a large part of annual income is from investments. Though corporate profits are taxed at 35 percent, in the form of [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]capital [COLOR=blue !important]gains [/COLOR][COLOR=blue !important]and [/COLOR][COLOR=blue !important]dividends[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] they are taxed at 15 percent. Senate testimony in May from the Tax Foundation also showed that for taxpayers making more than $200,000 a year, their salary income made up just 20 percent of national salary income. Much more came from business income.
In total, the Obama deficit-reduction package would seek to raise taxes, mostly on high-income households, by $1.5 trillion over the next decade.
About half of that is from letting the Bush tax cuts expire for households making more than $250,000. Other changes would strip tax breaks for [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]oil [COLOR=blue !important]and [/COLOR][COLOR=blue !important]gas [/COLOR][COLOR=blue !important]companies[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] and other benefits.
The White House would not say how much might be raised from the Buffett Rule or how it would be implemented.
But the Buffett Rule quickly became the rallying cry for the president's plan. In an email to supporters sent Monday night, the campaign urged voters to get the president's back on the plan.
"This proposal makes sure millionaires and billionaires share the responsibility for reducing the deficit," the email said. "The other side is already saying it's 'class warfare' -- that's their rhetorical smokescreen for providing millionaires and billionaires special treatment."
But Republican Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels told Fox News the president's proposal appeared to be "purposely divisive."
"As a practical matter, it's a loser," he said, describing the plan as "hair-of-the-dog economics."
"You know people that have had way too much of something they shouldn't and there's always somebody who says have another one, it'll make you feel better -- it just doesn't work any better in this case," Daniels said.
Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal said the problem is spending and described the president's proposal as not serious.
"He doesn't get it," Jindal told Fox News.
The president's plan was presented as a proposal to the bipartisan "super committee" trying to find at least $1.2 trillion in deficit savings by Thanksgiving.
The plan includes more than just tax hikes. It covers $580 billion in cuts to entitlement and other federal programs, including to Medicare and Medicaid. The president also claimed $1.1 trillion in savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- a claim that has been dismissed as a budgetary gimmick in the past. If the war savings are counted alongside interest savings and the cuts Congress enacted in August, the president's plan is worth than $4 trillion over the next decade.
While Republicans slammed the proposal as divisive and unworkable, some Democrats applauded the president for asking the wealthy to pay more while shielding Medicare seniors and other [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]entitlement [COLOR=blue !important]program[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] beneficiaries from more severe cutbacks.
"With the wealthiest people in this country becoming wealthier and large corporations enjoying huge profits, it is time that we end tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations and have them pay their fair share," Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said in a statement.
"We call on Congress to immediately pass the president's proposal for job-creating investments, to ask the wealthy to start paying their fair share, to focus on the true causes of our long-term deficits, to reject any cuts to Medicaid or Social Security or [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]Medicare [COLOR=blue !important]benefits[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR], and to stop scapegoating federal and postal employees and retirees for problems they did not cause," AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1eMYhCEY8[/COLOR]
- Marshall
- 11-21-2011, 11:47 AM
No Country Leans on Upper-Income Households as Much as U.S.
by Scott A. Hodge
During my recent testimony before the Senate Budget Committee (found here), I cited an OECD statistic that the U.S. has the most progressive income tax system among industrialized nations.[1] This prompted one Senator to point out that if the richest 10% of taxpayers earn the most of any OECD country, shouldn't it make sense that they bear the largest tax burden of any country?
The answer can be found in the OECD table below. This table shows the share of taxes paid by the richest 10 percent of households, the share of all market income earned by that group, and the ratio of what that 10 percent of households pays in taxes versus what they earn as a share of the nation's income.
The first column shows that the top 10 percent of households in the U.S. pays 45.1 percent of all income taxes (both personal income and payroll taxes combined) in the country. Italy is the only other country in which the top 10 percent of households pays more than 40 percent of the income tax burden (42.2%). Meanwhile, the average tax burden for the top decile of households in OECD countries is 31.6 percent.
By contrast, column #2 shows that the richest decile in America earned 33.5 percent of the market income in the country in 2005 - the year in which this snapshot was taken, but little has changed since then. But, a few other countries do have a greater or similar concentration of income as does the U.S. For example, the OECD table shows that the wealthiest decile of households in Italy and Poland earn a greater share of their country's market income than do our "rich" - 35.8 percent and 33.9 percent respectively - while the share of income earned by the top decile of households in the U.K. is about on par with those in the U.S. at 32.3 percent.
The table then adjusts for the underlying allocation of income by showing the ratio of income taxes paid to the share of income earned by the top decile in each country. The ratio for U.S. households is 1.35, far greater than the ratio of taxes to income in any other country. Even in the three countries with a comparable distribution of income, the ratio of taxes to income was less, 1.18 in Italy, 0.84 in Poland, and 1.20 in the U.K.
Interestingly, countries with top personal income tax rates that are higher than in the U.S., such as Germany, France, or Sweden, have ratios that are closer to 1 to 1. Meaning, the share of the tax burden paid by the richest decile in those countries is roughly equal to their share of the nation's income. By contrast, we prefer to have the wealthiest households in this country pay a share of the tax burden that is one-third greater than their share of the nation's income.
OECD-24
Source: Computations based on OECD income distribution questionnaire.
I'LL BET dumbass DOESN'T READ THESE ARTICLES!!!!!!
by Scott A. Hodge
During my recent testimony before the Senate Budget Committee (found here), I cited an OECD statistic that the U.S. has the most progressive income tax system among industrialized nations.[1] This prompted one Senator to point out that if the richest 10% of taxpayers earn the most of any OECD country, shouldn't it make sense that they bear the largest tax burden of any country?
The answer can be found in the OECD table below. This table shows the share of taxes paid by the richest 10 percent of households, the share of all market income earned by that group, and the ratio of what that 10 percent of households pays in taxes versus what they earn as a share of the nation's income.
The first column shows that the top 10 percent of households in the U.S. pays 45.1 percent of all income taxes (both personal income and payroll taxes combined) in the country. Italy is the only other country in which the top 10 percent of households pays more than 40 percent of the income tax burden (42.2%). Meanwhile, the average tax burden for the top decile of households in OECD countries is 31.6 percent.
By contrast, column #2 shows that the richest decile in America earned 33.5 percent of the market income in the country in 2005 - the year in which this snapshot was taken, but little has changed since then. But, a few other countries do have a greater or similar concentration of income as does the U.S. For example, the OECD table shows that the wealthiest decile of households in Italy and Poland earn a greater share of their country's market income than do our "rich" - 35.8 percent and 33.9 percent respectively - while the share of income earned by the top decile of households in the U.K. is about on par with those in the U.S. at 32.3 percent.
The table then adjusts for the underlying allocation of income by showing the ratio of income taxes paid to the share of income earned by the top decile in each country. The ratio for U.S. households is 1.35, far greater than the ratio of taxes to income in any other country. Even in the three countries with a comparable distribution of income, the ratio of taxes to income was less, 1.18 in Italy, 0.84 in Poland, and 1.20 in the U.K.
Interestingly, countries with top personal income tax rates that are higher than in the U.S., such as Germany, France, or Sweden, have ratios that are closer to 1 to 1. Meaning, the share of the tax burden paid by the richest decile in those countries is roughly equal to their share of the nation's income. By contrast, we prefer to have the wealthiest households in this country pay a share of the tax burden that is one-third greater than their share of the nation's income.
Table 4.5. Alternative measures of progressivity of taxes in selected OECD countries, mid-2000s
B. Percentage share of richest decile
1. Share of taxes of richest decile
2. Share of market income of richest decile
3. Ratio of shares for richest decile (1/2)
Australia1. Share of taxes of richest decile
2. Share of market income of richest decile
3. Ratio of shares for richest decile (1/2)
36.8
28.6
1.29
Austria28.6
1.29
28.5
26.1
1.10
Belgium26.1
1.10
25.4
27.1
0.94
Canada27.1
0.94
35.8
29.3
1.22
Czech Republic29.3
1.22
34.3
29.4
1.17
Denmark29.4
1.17
26.2
25.7
1.02
Finland25.7
1.02
32.3
26.9
1.20
France26.9
1.20
28.0
25.5
1.10
Germany25.5
1.10
31.2
29.2
1.07
Iceland29.2
1.07
21.6
24.0
0.90
Ireland24.0
0.90
39.1
30.9
1.26
Italy30.9
1.26
42.2
35.8
1.18
Japan35.8
1.18
28.5
28.1
1.01
Korea28.1
1.01
27.4
23.4
1.17
Luxembourg23.4
1.17
30.3
26.4
1.15
Netherlands26.4
1.15
35.2
27.5
1.28
New Zealand27.5
1.28
35.9
30.3
1.19
Norway30.3
1.19
27.4
28.9
0.95
Poland28.9
0.95
28.3
33.9
0.84
Slovak Republic33.9
0.84
32.0
28.0
1.14
Sweden28.0
1.14
26.7
26.6
1.00
Switzerland26.6
1.00
20.9
23.5
0.89
United Kingdom23.5
0.89
38.6
32.3
1.20
United States32.3
1.20
45.1
33.5
1.35
33.5
1.35
OECD-24
31.6
28.4
1.11
28.4
1.11
Source: Computations based on OECD income distribution questionnaire.
I'LL BET dumbass DOESN'T READ THESE ARTICLES!!!!!!
- CuteOldGuy
- 11-21-2011, 12:01 PM
