Patty

This is the real income inequality.

CDM Loc: Florida

Patty, rhetorical only. I don't believe it's a problem so much as a natural, human state. I am, somewhat tongue in cheek, asking the zealots and believers in inequality and reditribution (Obama might like to address this), the same people who's favorite term is "level the playing field" to clearly define the inequality specifically and state clearly their proposed solution.

I have waited a long time for these people to explain how we will achieve the one true cure; equality in natural ability, in inate intelligence, in drive, desire and guts. Accrding to Dawin and other learnrd men, we have a ways to go.

4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory

What if you had another friend that bust his chops 6 days a week for 100k and pay 30% couldn't he say that was income inequality also ?

After all he worked just as hard as you and made $50,000 less !

Patty

We have been left with a Capitalist Preditory system and has replaced our democracy.

Buford Loc: Arizona

Apparently your friend doesn't believe in income equality or he would be sharing with you and you wouldn't be dying about it isn't fair

Buford Loc: Arizona

It's usually the guy that wants something for nothing that complains of what's not fair. Here we have the same thing.

CDM Loc: Florida

Please expand on this. I understand cronie capitalism and it's damaging effect. Not sure what you mean by 'preditory'. Thanks.

Patty

"Ray" said it much better than I can put into words.
""'Ray' via ClubOrlov blog,

The founding principle for this new form of government which emerged in the 18th century, was that the Common Man was the ultimate source of power. Citizen legislators would enact the laws and shape the nation’s destiny. But instead, our republic is now strong-armed by professional politicians. The two dominant concerns of these careerists are to STAY in power and to do the bidding of those who ENABLE them to stay in power. Anyone who doubts this statement might try explaining why campaign finance reform and term limits are perennially “off the table.” Actually, that is an understatement - they aren’t even in the building.

It is bad enough that the President, Congress and the Courts serve the interests of a minority that is so tiny that it is almost microscopic. What is even worse, is WHO that elite constituency is. It is exclusively THE BIGS: Big banks, Big corporations, Big agriculture, Big energy, Big pharmaceuticals, Big health care, Big high tech and the BIGGEST of them all - the military-industrial complex.

The “Vox Populi” – voice of the people is now as quaint and outmoded as telephone booths on street-corners. Even when there is a massive outpouring of disapproval for a policy - such as the enormous public outcry against Iraq Invasion 2 – the will of the people is disregarded. Instead, the “leaders” kiss the sterns of their financial backers. Ten million irate citizens cannot offset a single Halliburton.

But not only has genuine democracy vaporized, its putrid carcass is used against the ordinary person for whom it was initially conceived. Our demagogues give stirring speeches applauding our inalienable rights and the freedoms that our constitution protects. But at the same time, they barely whimper when a whistle blower reveals that the surveillance grid that is monitoring our behavior is beyond the wildest imaginings of Orwell or Huxley. And when the head of the Department of Omnipresent Surveillance admits that he lied to Congress, he is not prosecuted for perjury. Amazingly, he doesn’t even lose his job.

When the President signs the NDAA act which allows for “indefinite detention” of citizens without formal charges or without the right to a lawyer, it should be utterly clear that the boot of Soft-Core Tyranny is now on our neck. And that unchecked and almost unnoticed power continues to grow at an obscene pace. Examples of this are the militarization of small town police departments, the unending malignant growth of the Department of Homeland Security and the cessation of Posse Comitatus which keeps the military from being used as a domestic police force.

But even though our career politicians only represent the rich and the powerful, and even though they abet the steady erosion of our constitutionally ordained rights, it is even worse! That’s because despite making a mockery of democracy at home, they trumpet its virtues abroad. This is shameful Hypocrisy with a capital H.

What they are really trying to spread is not Democracy but Predatory Capitalism. They want to expand the sphere of influence of their financial backers who want greater market share in more and more markets. They do this through subtle intrusion via the IMF and the World Bank. Concurrent with this, they embrace the most corrupt and brutal local politicians they can find. The saying “He may be a genocidal dictator, but he’s OUR genocidal dictator” is not a punch-line in a joke. It is standard operating procedure for U.S. foreign policy. If this kinder, gentler approach fails, then the next steps are assassination or invasion. So the spreading of democracy leaves death, mutilation and destruction in its wake.

So, in conclusion, it appears to me that America is no longer a world-wide exemplar of how to sculpt a civilized society. Instead, it is far down the road to becoming a full-blown Corporate Police State. It has fallen so tragically, that it is now just a self-deluded leper strutting about the global stage - unaware that the theater has already emptied."

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

Cheer up,when Obama gets done you will be paying 90% on your 150k and someone will still make 700M and pay 15%.What kind of lifestyle do you think Obama is going to have, he will not be sharing his income with anyone.this guy is only using people like you to gain control over all of us.

Patty

America for Obama is a mere stepping stone. He will head for the big money.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-12/imf-wants-you-pay-71-income-tax

jjb2012

All conservatives please explain this.

From 1940 to 1979 the highest tax rate was never below 60% and most of those years it was higher the 70%. Were we socialist or just fiscally responsible all those years??

Republicans all claim Reagan was a "GREAT" President because he saved our economy but at what cost?? He almost tripled the deficit while cutting taxes.

JUST A THOUGHT

The GOP has been proposing lowering the top marginal tax rate for a generation, all on a premise that by allowing the wealthy to keep their money, they will invest it and create jobs. That theory has been discussed at length and I would hate to beat a dead horse, so let’s take the GOP and the conservatives at their word. Back in 1980s the Republicans, headed by Ronald Reagan began cutting the top marginal tax bracket. In 1982-1986 the top marginal tax rate was 50%. In 1987 the tax rate dropped to 38.5%, so for the majority (7 out of 8 years) of Reagan’s terms the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was well above the top tax rates of today. In fact the wealthy only kept HALF or less of their money under most of Reagan’s presidency, yet that was enough to stimulate the economy according to many conservatives who credit the tax rates for the economic expansion of the 1980s.

Today, under President Obama and former President Bush, the top marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans is 35% while many wall streters still only pay 15% or less. The wealthy are actually forking over LESS under President Obama than they did under Reagan. The wealthy are keeping more of their money than during the 1980s and they have been since 2003. This leads us to the question, if lowering the tax rates under Reagan to 50% and the wealthy keeping only HALF of their money stimulated the economy, why aren’t these current tax rates stimulating the economy? The wealthy are keeping 65% of their wealth NOW than under the majority of Reagan TWO terms which was only 50%. This is mathematically backwards.




In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.
The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.
All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
Annual federal tax receipts during his presidency averaged 18.2% of GDP, a little below the average under President Carter -- and a little above the 40-year average today.
Sound familiar??
"By today's standards, the Gipper would easily qualify for status as a back-stabbing, treacherous RINO [Republican in Name Only]," wrote Tax Analysts contributing editor Martin Sullivan, in an article for Tax Notes.

Patty

Lowest Tax Bracket (from 1948, for married filing jointly)
Years Rate Ceiling Comments
(Items not included in given rate)
1913-1915 1% $20,000
1916 2% $20,000
1917 2% $2,000
1918 6% $4,000
1919-1923 4% $4,000 In 1923, a statutory credit effectively reduced this rate to 3%.
1924 2% $4,000 A statutory credit effectively reduced this rate to 1.5%.
1925-1928 1.5% $4,000 A statutory credit effectively reduced this rate to 1.125%.
1929 0.5% $4,000 A statutory credit effectively reduced this rate to 0.375%.
1930-1931 1.5% $4,000 A statutory credit effectively reduced this rate to 1.125%.
1932-1940 4% $4,000 In 1940, a defense surchage effectively increased this rate to 4.4%. In 1934-1940, some statutory deductions effectively reduced this rate.
1941 10% $2,000 Some statutory deductions effectively reduced this rate.
1942-1943 19% $2,000 Some statutory deductions effectively reduced this rate.
1944-1945 23% $2,000
1946-1947 20% $2,000 A statutory credit effectively reduced this rate to 19%.
1948-1950 20% $4,000 In 1948-1948, statutory credits effectively reduced this rate to 16.6%, and in 1950, to 17.4%.
1951 20.4% $4,000
1952-1953 22.2% $4,000
1954-1963 20% $4,000
1964 16% $1,000
1965-1976 14% $1,000 In 1974, a statutory rebate effectively reduced this rate.
1977-1978 14% $3,200 *
1979-1981 14% $3,400 * In 1981, a statutory credit effectively reduced the rate to 13.875%.
1982 12% $3,400 *
1983-1984 11% $3,400 *
1985-1986 11% $3,540 + * See the Indexing to Inflation table below.
1987 11% $3,000
1988-2001 15% $29,750 + See the Indexing to Inflation table below.
2002 10% $12,000
2003- 10% $14,000 + See the Indexing to Inflation table below.

I think you have been drinking to much of the Kool Aid.

jjb2012

PATTY you totally miss the Facts OF MY POST and try to twist the subject.

The HIGHEST tax rate paid from 1940 to 1979 WAS NEVER BELOW 60%.

In 1978 anyone making over 200,000 PAID a 70% tax rate, that was 70% on every dollar over 200,000 if that number were to be adjusted for inflation it would be over 650,000 today. I do not suggested we need to go back to those rates only that this country was BUILT during some of the highest taxes on the wealthy.

TRY MORE MISDIRECTION AND KOOL_AID PATTY

Patty

You seem to be missing the point. Over half the people in this country pay no taxes at all. We cant cvontinue to pay for all the liberals who are to lazy to get a job.

Artemis

excellent comment