<p>When a nearly a majority of the population pays ZERO in federal income taxes, something is radically wrong</p>
<p>“… a majority of the population pays ZERO in taxes …”</p>
<p>Hmmm, I wonder how they get around paying Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, State Income taxes, local property taxes, state and local sales taxes, gasoline taxes, telephone taxes, etc.</p>
<p>If on the other hand you’re referring to Federal Income taxes, well then obviously you’re correct.</p>
<p>Thats to what i refer,perhaps you posted to quickly. ;)</p>
<p>Oh yeah, those “lucky duck” poor people that pay no income tax! And lots of them even have refrigerators, or even airconditioning! So they’re not really poor. The heck with them! Make 'em pay their fair share! Or sell their refrigerators! Or something. Only big corporations like BoA or GE should get away with paying no income tax.
And corporate welfare is just peachy, but not welfare that helps people put a roof over their heads or food in their children’s bellies - that’s evil incarnate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are confusing earned income and investment income. The wealthy pay a substantially higher percentage of their earned income than do the non-wealthy. As earned income increases, the marginal tax rate increases and the wealthy pay a much higher percentage.</p>
<p>The wealthy pay the same percentage as do the non-wealthy for investment income. The capital gains rate is the same and the investment income rate is the same for the wealthy. </p>
<p>Buffett earns nearly all of his money as investment income and not as salary. If he wanted to pay more taxes, he could increase his salary to replace all of the investment income he earns.</p>
<p>If your view is that the income tax on investment income for the wealthy should rise, I have no problem with that. It may have adverse consequences to other parts of the economy, but that’s ok as long as those terrible rich people get what’s coming to them for being successful.</p>
<p>“The wealthy pay the same percentage as do the non-wealthy for investment income.”</p>
<p>Problem is, the non-wealthy have very little investment income, and the poor have no investment income at all (which, when you think about it, is why Social Security and Medicare are such critical resources for the elderly … most of whom are POOR).</p>
<p>Air condintioning without paying income tax??? They prob ably have an Ipod and Iphone too, oh the horror…Everyone should pay something,sorry…</p>
<p>“If your view …”</p>
<p>My view is that the country needs some adults in Congress … individuals who can function without being enraged that everyone doesn’t share his-or-her view.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Income taxes are not supposed to be used to pay for social security and medicare. Separate taxes are supposed to be funding those programs.</p>
<p>Today’s elderly are getting so much more out of social security and medicare than they ever paid in social security and medicare taxes it is jeopardizing these programs for future generations.</p>
<p>Did you hear that on Faux News? Or did Rush Limbaugh tell you?</p>
<p>“Everyone should pay something …”</p>
<p>I have no problem with this. I do have a problem with the working Americans paying a higher percentage in TOTAL taxes than wealthy Americans (and corporations). It’s easy to look at Federal Income Taxes and conclude that the majority of Americans are “getting away with paying nothing.” Here in Connecticut, the reality is that it’s difficult to “spend” 70% of your pay. Social Security and Medicare taxes take about 9%. State Income tax is 5% off the top. If you need a car to get to work there’s property tax on the car, gasoline taxes to fill it, sales taxes to repair it, etc. Sales tax on most purchases is 6.35%. There are phone taxes and electric tax, heating oil taxes, etc. I could go on, but you get the idea.</p>
<p>Thanks to my mother the job creator, and the low taxes she pays, we have nothing to worry about.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The elderly do have more poor and more rich than the non-elderly in the US. The Gini coefficient for the over 65 in the US was higher than that of the under 65 in 1997, according to this paper: <a href=“http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/11/art2full.pdf[/url]”>http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/11/art2full.pdf</a> .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My information comes from years of reading the legislation creating social security and Medicare. Since you obviously don’t do much reading on the subject, you can check out Wikipedia’s summary. It’s not too bad. </p>
<p>[Social</a> Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia”>Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Social security was never intended to be welfare for the elderly, but that is what it has become.</p>
<p>A lot of nasty arguments this weekend on a few of the forums that I follow.</p>
<p>Perhaps stock market losses and college bills have people on edge.</p>
<p>The Housing Bubble Blog was started in November 2004 - there were many traders discussing the housing bubble in 2002-2004 as well - I visited a few of those boards regularly. I was pretty active on the Housing Bubble Blog and we all predicted what was to come - the main thing that we didn’t know was when. Then it all unraveled with a lot of the predictions at the blog coming true. Roubini was a fairly high-profile guy on the bear boards - those include sites that specialize in energy, gold and other commodities. He is prolific on the weekend podcast circuit.</p>
<p>What he says isn’t really all that useful for short-term trading. One can continuously state that the sky is falling and one day they will be right. At any rate, I thought that this would be a snoozy weekend with parents loading up their cars or helping their kids pack or lamenting that their house is quiet.</p>
<p>One of the guys who actually predicted the housing bubble and has credibility is Robert Shiller. He is one of the guys who created the case-shiller index which tracks housing prices. He has been tracking housing prices for several decades and in 2006 not only predicted that the bubble would burst but also predicted the type of recession that would follow.</p>
<p>I saw a few of the lectures from his Open Yale Course on Financial Markets.</p>
<p>[Financial</a> Markets — Open Yale Courses](<a href=“http://oyc.yale.edu/economics/financial-markets/]Financial”>http://oyc.yale.edu/economics/financial-markets/)</p>
<p>Financial institutions are a pillar of civilized society, supporting people in their productive ventures and managing the economic risks they take on. The workings of these institutions are important to comprehend if we are to predict their actions today and their evolution in the coming information age. The course strives to offer understanding of the theory of finance and its relation to the history, strengths and imperfections of such institutions as banking, insurance, securities, futures, and other derivatives markets, and the future of these institutions over the next century.</p>
<p>Good link!</p>
<p>Putting more money into the pockets of the already-rich does not create jobs. How many times to we have to learn that lesson? The latest round of supply-side economics began in 2001, when we again lightened the load for those who needed it least. The argument back then was that those people would take all that money and create jobs. But the wealthy are not stupid. Why would they hire an extra worker to create a product which no one will buy?</p>
<p>What creates jobs is demand for goods and services, and that demand comes largely from the poor and middle-class. When the public wants a widget, someone will find a way to satisfy that demand, creating jobs for widget workers and creating wealth for the owner of the widget factory. Putting more money into the pockets of consumers would ultimately turn the economy around, if only we weren’t in thrall to the false notion that “we can’t tax the job creators.”</p>
<p>The corporations are sitting on a mountain of cash (so is my mother the job creator). They won’t spend it, and with good reason. No one is buying. I’d like to know how many jobs the vaunted tax cuts that were a major part of the so-called stimulus created.</p>
<p>Want to ensure spending? Extend unemployment insurance for three years. Those who receive it won’t save anything. It will all go directly into the market for goods and services.</p>