Should the Richest 10% Pay Two-Thirds...

Should the Richest 10% Pay Two-Thirds of the Taxes?

There are 1159 comments on the online.wsj.com story from Feb 7, 2012, titled Should the Richest 10% Pay Two-Thirds of the Taxes?. In it, online.wsj.com reports that:

Topix Staff Story

Obama mentions "fairness" so often in his speeches that the word is featured in State of the Union drinking games. But looking past the rhetoric, how fair is tax policy under Obama? asks the Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore:

Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?

Moore's questions all point to the idea that wealthy Americans suffer under an unfairly huge tax burden. And some of his questions skate lightly over inconvenient facts that undermine this narrative of overtaxed rich folk. For instance, he asks emotively,

Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money...must then pay an additional estate tax of 35%...when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones?

The question implies that the estate tax affects everyone, but actually, it only affects estates of over $5,000,000 dollars.

Do you agree - Are taxes on the wealthy unfair? And is Obama to blame, like Moore suggests?

Join the discussion below, or Read more at online.wsj.com.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#1038 Mar 29, 2012
Telmark wrote:
Dodge, fish, dodge, fish, dodge, fish, and refuse to admit that your ponzi scheme comment was wrong.
That's what you're all about in here Sofa King Cool.
Dodge, fish, dodge, fish, dodge, fish.
You'd best get back to your sofa because you're taking a "drubbing" in here.
But then again SKC, all you're doing in here is trolling. It's OK SKC, you can be an adult and admit that you're trolling. You know it, and we know it. The funny thing is that you're only fooling yourself with what you do and post in here.
BTW BeHereNow, the "wealthy" you mention usually earn less than 10% in profit from the goods and services they sell. This includes the money they receive from welfare/public assistance business transactions. These business profits generally run at ~3-7% for every dollar they invest in providing the goods and services that support the economy.
Those that collect welfare/public assistance, on the other hand, receive the full benefit of the money we hand out to them less taxes (if applicable). These taxes average 7-12% depending on where the transaction takes place.
This, imo, is the big difference between the "capitalists" and the welfare/public assistance funded consumers that they profit from.
So capitalists receive 'profit', welfare people receive 'benefit'.
Capitalists receive no benefit from the welfare dollars they receive? Of course they do, double dippers.
Welfare dollars spent on 'improvements', are not profit, but they are benefits.
Same for welfare dollars spent on payroll, a benefit to the owner.

For grocery stores the amount of food stamps dollars received exceed the profit the owner makes. Surely that represents not only profit, but benefit as well.

The single largest social service expenditure is medical, medicaid, medicare, and oother assorted programs.
Half of all b abvies born in teh USA are paid for by welfare. Alaska is 52%. Medicaid pays not only for the delivery, but the prenatal care as well.
Hospitals get the majority of their money from government payments.

And then there is the issue of low wages being subsidized by the government, in the form of social services.
Walmart is notorious for not providing health benefits, telling their employees,'Go to social services.'

Small businesses are able to get emmployees to come to work, because the low wages are subsidized. No food stamps and no medical assistance, no workers.
~
~
~
Let me be clear, I think the whole social service system is so broken, it needs to be trashed.
Put thinks on autopilot for 12 months, then stop all benefits cold turkey for 12 months, then restructure, start over. Two years to reprogram. Even in polotics that should be enough time.

The liberals will scream bloody murder, but a lot of businesses will have to close there doors as well. Republicans will not be well pleased either.

~~
Why is it that Obama is known as the welfare president, yet the elimination of resources tests disappeared during Bush?
Liberals want obama to be the welfare president, and so do the Republicans, even though Bush was president when the floodgates opened.
If either one were concerned with the truth, Bush would be the welfare president, and Obama would be the Johnny come lately, but that doesn't fit anyone's agenda.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#1039 Mar 29, 2012
Most social services dollars today are third party payments, straight from the govenment to the capitalist. The recipients never see most of the money, only the food stamps and cash assistance, a very small part of the whole. Like maybe 10%.

If those loafers never received the third party payment on their behalf, they would never be spent, never go into the hands of capitalists.

20 year olds with two children liven in a $500 apartment, because the government pays it. No handout, they move in with mom, capitalist landlord losses a tenant.
Capitalist energy provider loses a customer, who gets.

I do not think most of you realize how deep the roots of this go.
No medical card, no doctor vist, no payment.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#1040 Mar 29, 2012
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>So capitalists receive 'profit', welfare people receive 'benefit'.
Capitalists receive no benefit from the welfare dollars they receive? Of course they do, double dippers.
Welfare dollars spent on 'improvements', are not profit, but they are benefits.
Same for welfare dollars spent on payroll, a benefit to the owner.
For grocery stores the amount of food stamps dollars received exceed the profit the owner makes. Surely that represents not only profit, but benefit as well.
The single largest social service expenditure is medical, medicaid, medicare, and oother assorted programs.
And then there is the issue of low wages being subsidized by the government, in the form of social services.
Walmart is notorious for not providing health benefits, telling their employees,'Go to social services.'
Small businesses are able to get emmployees to come to work, because the low wages are subsidized. No food stamps and no medical assistance, no workers.
~
~
~
Let me be clear, I think the whole social service system is so broken, it needs to be trashed.
Put thinks on autopilot for 12 months, then stop all benefits cold turkey for 12 months, then restructure, start over. Two years to reprogram. Even in polotics that should be enough time.
The liberals will scream bloody murder, but a lot of businesses will have to close there doors as well. Republicans will not be well pleased either.
~~
Why is it that Obama is known as the welfare president, yet the elimination of resources tests disappeared during Bush?
Liberals want obama to be the welfare president, and so do the Republicans, even though Bush was president when the floodgates opened.
If either one were concerned with the truth, Bush would be the welfare president, and Obama would be the Johnny come lately, but that doesn't fit anyone's agenda.
You worked in social services, so you know what you are talking about. I live in a full blown welfare town AFTER living in a world class city for 43 years, so I see all of the things you saw. I only always saw people all working, then I come here and everyone is on the government, so I see these people as they really are, from a different point of view than they see themselves. People who never live in a city where there are jobs and who live like this all of their lives, generation after generation, they think this is a normal way to live, they have no normal perspective on it. This lady who works at Walmart told me that on the 1st and the 5th of the month they make most all of their money, that most everyone in Citrus Heights is on SS and Medicare or on food stamps and SSI and welfare. So all of Walmart's profits here comes from the government. The government runs up over a trillion dollars of debt every year, they hand the money out in SS, SSI and food stamps, the day they hand it out it goes to Walmart, etc. And, you are also right in that Walmart has their employees on Medicaid and food stamps and on Section 8 housing, so we run up debt to subsidize Walmart's salaries. I went in there one time in years and years and bought a few pieces of their cheaply priced clothing and the lady checking me out at the counter was so mad that I was buying cheap ass Walmart clothes. She said that she can't ever afford to buy clothes. So here you have a full employee who can't ever buy clothes, and she is harrassing a customer over something as petty as me buying a $5 dollar shirt. This is how bad it is.

At the same time, the one percent are in a bubble and have no clue about any of this. They all buy $10,000 pair of shoes. Those 4 inch heals that are beige that the women on Fox wear and that the Housewives of Beverely Hills wear, same shoe - it is Louis Vuitton shoe that costs about $10,000 while a full employee at Walmart resents a customer having $5 to buy a shirt. This is a third world country.

This is such a welfare town that the stores have huge signs saying "WE ACCEPT EBT CARDS."
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#1041 Mar 29, 2012
BeHereNow wrote:
Most social services dollars today are third party payments, straight from the govenment to the capitalist. The recipients never see most of the money, only the food stamps and cash assistance, a very small part of the whole. Like maybe 10%.
If those loafers never received the third party payment on their behalf, they would never be spent, never go into the hands of capitalists.
20 year olds with two children liven in a $500 apartment, because the government pays it. No handout, they move in with mom, capitalist landlord losses a tenant.
Capitalist energy provider loses a customer, who gets.
I do not think most of you realize how deep the roots of this go.
No medical card, no doctor vist, no payment.
The problem with all of this is we are not paying for it, we are running up debt to pay for it until we default on the debt. Then we have no money to pay for it. It's insane to give young people free housing. They don't need it and all it does is encourage them to have kids they can't afford to have.

The real problem I see is - for example, where I live there are X amount of real jobs, but Y amount of people. It's been that way for 40 years or so. So you have 400,000 people who are not ever going to be able to get a job. They want want kids, so they go on welfare. In reality, if welfare did not exist, they would not have kids, there would be less people and then there would be enough jobs for the people who exist. The lack of jobs creates the welfare usage and keeps the population too big so it's a continuous cycle of people breeding on welfare and they just look at it like, so, there's no jobs, they want kids, that's just the way life is. Welfare is the problem.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#1042 Mar 29, 2012
It is sooooo bad here that thrift stores are where everyone goes. It's big business here. It is so bad here that I went into a thrift store and bought $40 worth of clothing, which is worth about $750 if it was new and I had to pay taxes on it. Again, the clerk was mad as hell that I could buy used clothes for .80 cents a piece and she attacked me four times when I am her customer. The idea is that everyone is broke that they even resent it if you buy clothes that are used from a thrift store for .80 cents. Her attitude was I am getting too much and why am I buying winter clothes, not spring clothes and why am I buying striped clothes and on and on she went. This is how bad it is. They think buying a used coat for $4 means I am rich and that I'm getting something they're not. The clothes stink so badly when you get them home you have to wash them twice and some have body on them. And the clerk is jealous I'm buying that stuff because I am poor. OMG.
JDC

Dallas, TX

#1043 Mar 29, 2012
BeHereNow wrote:
So I need to verify to you that the wealthy own utility companies, not the poor.
No you said that the wealthy receive most of the social services. I just asked you to prove it and obviously you could not as I had known.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#1044 Mar 29, 2012
JDC wrote:
<quoted text>
No you said that the wealthy receive most of the social services. I just asked you to prove it and obviously you could not as I had known.
They just had a thing on Morning Joe where they showed that Social Security and Medicare is where most of the money from the government is going. They said that the country spends $7 per old person and $1 per young person. In five more years, SS and Medicare will be using up 89 percent of the federal budget. Old people have 35 more times money than young people, and they want the government to give them 7 times more money than young people get. The problem is almost everyone is getting money from the government one way or another and no one wants to give it up. What they said on Morning Joe is that it was historic how many old people voted in 2010, and we all know that's because Obama took a lot money out of medicare. So each group is fighting to be the group that gets the government money. Now add in what Romney said - that we are soon going to have a debt crisis. So soon we can't borrow anymore money, we dont' take in enough to pay all all of this stuff, so at that point all of this stuff ends and then we have civil unrest. The government did all of this. They have no clue what they are doing, and Ron Paul telling the truth about all of it.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#1045 Mar 29, 2012
JDC wrote:
<quoted text>
No you said that the wealthy receive most of the social services. I just asked you to prove it and obviously you could not as I had known.
As I said
"Unknowabale statistic.
I have no proof, just common sense.
I would like to hear your common sense rebuttal."

And your common sense rebuttal, is nonexistent, as I suspected.
Telmark

Chico, CA

#1046 Mar 29, 2012
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>So capitalists receive 'profit', welfare people receive 'benefit'.
The fact is that welfare people benefit to a far larger degree percentage wise per dollar received than capitalists do percentage wise per transaction dollar they take in. Also keep in mind that there are far more US welfare recipients in existence than US capitalist business entities.

Surely you can "do the math" on that fact.

You can "dance, dodge, and slice" all you want with your "unknowable" and so-called "common sense.

But you can't change the facts in what I've said.

I'll also add that many or most capitalist businesses work hard to give consumers the ability to purchase the goods and services they provide or produce, value added or not.

Many welfare recipients, on the other hand, do little with their lives but to spend the money we hand out to them.

I, for one, am tired of seeing my taxes wasted on welfare recipients who, all too often, do little but shop, eat, sleep, and breed (more welfare recipients) for a living.

You may consider spending other people's money for a living as a "job". I, and many other working and/or income taxpayers, do not.

Meanwhile, I can partly understand your "way of thinking" due to the fact that you were paid a working wage to hand money out to welfare recipients. This, imo, would take a lot of strength and tolerance on your part. The problem is that you were, in all truth, earning money from the welfare system just as the capitalist businesses you mention. The difference between you, the capital business and the welfare recipients is that welfare recipients are not required to work for the benefits they receive.

However, I can tell you, as the former owner/operator of several small businesses, that I (and many other SB own/operators I've known) worked 8 and 10 hour days for months (and in my case 2 full years) without taking a single day off.

BTW, I agree with Pamela, and others in here, that our current welfare/public assistance system is ruining our economy and country.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#1047 Mar 29, 2012
Telmark wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is that welfare people benefit to a far larger degree percentage wise per dollar received than capitalists do percentage wise per transaction dollar they take in. Also keep in mind that there are far more US welfare recipients in existence than US capitalist business entities.
Surely you can "do the math" on that fact.
You can "dance, dodge, and slice" all you want with your "unknowable" and so-called "common sense.
But you can't change the facts in what I've said.
I'll also add that many or most capitalist businesses work hard to give consumers the ability to purchase the goods and services they provide or produce, value added or not.
Many welfare recipients, on the other hand, do little with their lives but to spend the money we hand out to them.
I, for one, am tired of seeing my taxes wasted on welfare recipients who, all too often, do little but shop, eat, sleep, and breed (more welfare recipients) for a living.
You may consider spending other people's money for a living as a "job". I, and many other working and/or income taxpayers, do not.
Meanwhile, I can partly understand your "way of thinking" due to the fact that you were paid a working wage to hand money out to welfare recipients. This, imo, would take a lot of strength and tolerance on your part. The problem is that you were, in all truth, earning money from the welfare system just as the capitalist businesses you mention. The difference between you, the capital business and the welfare recipients is that welfare recipients are not required to work for the benefits they receive.
However, I can tell you, as the former owner/operator of several small businesses, that I (and many other SB own/operators I've known) worked 8 and 10 hour days for months (and in my case 2 full years) without taking a single day off.
BTW, I agree with Pamela, and others in here, that our current welfare/public assistance system is ruining our economy and country.
Please note that I am one of the ones saying the current social serivce system is 'ruining our economy'.
I live it more than you do.
Net pay decreases for the last four years, the same expected the next four. The luck of the draw, not your fault.
I want it trashed.
The difference is I say no politician wants it trashed, and you seem to think Republicans have no stake in contining it as is.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#1048 Mar 29, 2012
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>Please note that I am one of the ones saying the current social serivce system is 'ruining our economy'.
I live it more than you do.
Net pay decreases for the last four years, the same expected the next four. The luck of the draw, not your fault.
I want it trashed.
The difference is I say no politician wants it trashed, and you seem to think Republicans have no stake in contining it as is.
Paul Ryan's budget really slashes welfare up though. I have a theory about it. The 2010 election was run by the old folks on SS and Medicare. It was a historic election with regards to how many older people voted. So the politicians heard it loud and clear that everyone wants SS and Medicare. So now they have no choice to either cut welfare or the entitlements, so finally they are willing to cut welfare, IMO. But, what you have to worry about is we have young people who have only known living on welfare so they will riot over this. When you have the younger generation having dropped out of high school, having no skills and not having had to ever work and you pull welfare, it is not going to be safe here, IMO.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#1049 Mar 29, 2012
Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>Paul Ryan's budget really slashes welfare up though. I have a theory about it. The 2010 election was run by the old folks on SS and Medicare. It was a historic election with regards to how many older people voted. So the politicians heard it loud and clear that everyone wants SS and Medicare. So now they have no choice to either cut welfare or the entitlements, so finally they are willing to cut welfare, IMO. But, what you have to worry about is we have young people who have only known living on welfare so they will riot over this. When you have the younger generation having dropped out of high school, having no skills and not having had to ever work and you pull welfare, it is not going to be safe here, IMO.
There are exceptions to every rule.
I would allow Ryan as an exception.

It is important to note that entitlements include VA pensions and benefits (that some would say were 'earned'), Federal Pensions (that were paid into by the employee), State pensions (that I paid for).
I say there are entitlements that have been 'paid for' in advance, and those that have not been paid for in any sense.
Medicare is an entitlement, and most workers paid into their account, some did not.
Telmark

Chico, CA

#1050 Mar 29, 2012
BeHereNow wrote:
<quoted text>Please note that I am one of the ones saying the current social serivce system is 'ruining our economy'.
Yes, you're right. I meant to acknowledge that fact in my post.

I apologize for not doing so.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#1051 Mar 29, 2012
Telmark wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you're right. I meant to acknowledge that fact in my post.
I apologize for not doing so.
Courtesy.
On the topix forum.
You have gone above and beyond and I certainly appreciate it, no sacrasm intended.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#1052 Mar 29, 2012
JDC wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes he wants to increase tax rates, the opposite of Obama.
Obama is the opposite of Obama? Get help, nitwit.
JDC

Dallas, TX

#1053 Mar 29, 2012
harvey wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama is the opposite of Obama? Get help, nitwit.
Perhaps you need a reading course, the subject was the tax policy of Obama vs Reagan. Obama wants higher rates, Reagan wanted lower rates, thus opposite policies. Do you follow?

Since: Jun 07

Allentown Pa

#1054 Mar 29, 2012
higgans wrote:
<quoted text>
nice dodge, king.
I'll take that as a 'screw any body BUT me!' answer. all too typical...
less IS better
Dodge? I pay too. And I'll collect less in the end than you. What are you missing?

Since: Jun 07

Allentown Pa

#1055 Mar 29, 2012
higgans wrote:
<quoted text>
two responses...
IS that what we were in 1912?
I'll wager my 1960's K-12 education was better than ur post-1980 college ed. I know from ur posts my History and Math skills exceed yours. and, YES...
less IS better
Wager? How can you prove it either way? That's silly.

Since: Jun 07

Allentown Pa

#1056 Mar 29, 2012
higgans wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess we can add simple Economics to ur lack of education, too!
now u are equating simple govt purchasing to investing and bail-outs. what, because king says they're the same, it MUST be so?
tell me, are u delusional or just simple-minded? paid back? and off the books, too? the paid back funds went directly to reduce the National Debt? or are WE still paying interest on that money?
oh, and if u pay NO SS tax, how do u intend to collect a SS check?
the Fed Govt making money? the only cash cow the Feds have is the American Income Tax payer... and only half of them. can u say moooo? as well as baaaa? stupid livestock...
less IS better
Is it really different? We spend billions on military "projects" that never get built. That's not simple purchasing. We pay businesses to try to develop things for military use that never get purchased or never work.

Since: Jun 07

Allentown Pa

#1057 Mar 29, 2012
higgans wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess we can add simple Economics to ur lack of education, too!
now u are equating simple govt purchasing to investing and bail-outs. what, because king says they're the same, it MUST be so?
tell me, are u delusional or just simple-minded? paid back? and off the books, too? the paid back funds went directly to reduce the National Debt? or are WE still paying interest on that money?
oh, and if u pay NO SS tax, how do u intend to collect a SS check?
the Fed Govt making money? the only cash cow the Feds have is the American Income Tax payer... and only half of them. can u say moooo? as well as baaaa? stupid livestock...
less IS better
There you go again. It's that reading comprehension issue you have problems with. From one of my jobs I don't pay SS tax. But my other profession, I pay self employment tax. Which pays twice the rate toward SS, the individual portion and the employer portion. So I do pay SS tax. Problem is, what I earn and what I will actually get are vastly different.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Tax Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Despite High Taxes, millionaires not fleeing Ny Sat Shinichiro Takizawa 27
News Tony Perkins claims churches will lose federal ... (May '15) May 26 Tony Perkins Faith 8
News Leading House conservative wants IRS chief impe... May 24 Le Jimbo 3
News Ted Nugent Wants Those On Welfare To Forfeit Ri... (Dec '12) May 23 Disabled Vet 39
News Trump's tax trouble: More than 100 lawsuits, di... May 21 Interesting 12
News Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit Program T... May 18 Sheri 2
News For Donald Trump, every vice is a virtue May 17 Truth 14
More from around the web