Unemployment falls to 7%

>>>Flamebait removed<<< We have the highest standard of living of any country in the history of the planet. We are taking in countless millions of the rest of the world's dregs and empoverished citizens. Don't blame the system for the fact that millions and millions of the poorest people on the planet are coming into our country, making the problems worse.

 

Welcome to Jones Town and take a deep swallow of your Kool Aid.

 

And some people are too ignorant to know that paying ON the debt is not the same as paying DOWN the debt.

 

What kind of nonsense are you trying to spin here? No statistician would derive that half of the gun owners are dem or repub based on the facts given.

 

Yep, effective tax rate. So whatever real tax rate that brings these households over the effecttive rate of 35% is okay with me. See in 1979, the tax rate for the top was 70% but the effective rate was 35.1%.

BTW, the link is: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

I would say that there was a lot of ignorance dancing around.

As I have been saying, anything over 35% of the household for 1%ers and anything below what they are paying right now for the bottom 50%.

 

US jobless claims hit 9-month high


First-time claims for US unemployment benefits rose for the second consecutive week last week, hitting a nine-month high during the year-end holiday season, government data released Thursday showed.

 

Wauw some arguments

 

You just dont get it. You want a simple answer x billion, well there is no simple answers. I frankly dont have clue (neither do you) how much it would cost running the US government now.

The current budget clearly isnt enough but that is absed more on past programs and the inability of congres to change anything about that.

 

Again you keep ignoring 1945 and 2013 are uncomparable, using that period as a model to show how much can be cut now is simply stupid.

The US now is a high tech society basedon good education and services. Not the agricultural/industrial base of 1945 .

If they did (which I dont know quite frankly) they were wrong, but that doesnt mean you are right now. Again the world and the US is vastly different from 1945 .

As in the industrial base and manpower base of 3/4 of the world economy gone, with the only big country that had a powerfull industrial base and the manpower left to run was the USA.
Anything cut from gov services could go immediatly in private sector. Hell there werent enough people.

It resulted in a massive spike in exports .

Rights that enable people . The gov is not for itself its there for the people.

Oh absolute BS. Please stop parroting others.

Banks WANTED bad loans as they could cut them up and resell them several times over they did everything they could for deregulation got most and ignored the small amount of regulation there was.

And while you are at it check history and bank defaults before there was any federal gouvernance and regulation. As if such a thing would be better.

Again you need a balance between regulation and free market, too far to any side is bad.

More parroting, non argument they can vote but choose dont .

And as anything in the gouvernement constitution can be adapted and this isnt about taking and giving rights.

As long as you have enough income to pay those bills no problem, but we both know plenty out there dont have enough, its about these we are talking about.

Ok wheer is it wrong, be specefic and back it up with sources.

And which countrys do you compare with then? If I compare with modern western states USA doesnt fare well. Its actually the most expensive for average care.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/m...t_sys_comparison_12_nations_intl_brief_v2.pdf

 

There are no facts available! You wish to assume all gun owners and NRA members are Republican which is absolutely not true! So the BEST assumption to make when facts are not available is that each party has the same quantity of guns...big fricken deal...

 

32% of households own guns. The top gun ownership states are red. Those seem to be facts to me. Willy nilly splitting the gun ownership in half is definitely not a fact.

What "facts" do you have to say that is not true?

Only if you have no clue as to how statistics work.

 

Neither do you! Statistics never assumes anything not in evidence. All you can say is that the people who live in the states which voted for conservatives have more guns. Nothing in that infers more conservatives own guns. That could be an assumption to use if you choose to do a study, which may or may not support the assumptions. the fact that even in some red states even have more democrats than republicans, and all red states have at least 40% democrats. I make no judgements about who actually own those guns, but there is no way you can make an inference not supported by facts. From past experience with you I also know that even when presented facts, such as a graph, you don't understand it and deny what it says. Time for you to regroup and educate yourself.

 

So you believe taxation should be based of what we leave the citizens of their earnings?

I don't subscribe to this "fairness" nonsense.

 

Glad you admit is AS rate but that is not what we are talking.

What share of income tax revenues should the top 1% pay to be fair and what share should the bottom pay? Is this over your head or something?

Well with your ignorance of the difference between an effective tax rate and what a percentage of total tax revenues is you are certainly demonstrating that.

 

No I was x%.

The claim is that the highest earners are not paying their fair percentage of income tax revenue. In order to make that factual statement then one must know what would be the % of total income tax revenues would be fair.

Waiting for someone to state what that is.

I don't subscribe to this fairness nonsense but the left led by Obama do and claim the highest earner are not paying their fair share. OK what would be their fair share then or are they all just blowing smoke?

 

Well if I see what the US gov actually tries to do now, and seeing how it fails in part due to lack of funds.
Seeing how the lower classes actually already pay quite a bit, I would think they dont pay enough now. So whatever on top of what they are paying now until the system balances out.

 

The bottom 49% do not pay federal income taxes. They do pay the premiums for SS and MC. What we should do is eliminate all the sales taxes, and other regressive taxes using a progressive income tax scale to fully support all government entities.

 

Fact is I own guns and I'm not a Republican.

I know how statistics work...in this case you have no data.

You create your talking points by assuming only Republicans support guns and the NRA...

 

I have run into him in another forum, in which he not only did not under statistics and was not even able to look at a very self defining graph. It is an inflation adjusted graph showing all of the quintiles of income over a 35 year period. The bottom quintile is represented by the lower two curves (broken into 2 lines) and the upper 4 quintiles reflect progressively increasing wages with the bottom quintile basically flat across the board. I am a Democrat and I own guns.

View attachment 24444 Click link to enlarge.

 

Still dodging. The lower income earners pay vitrually no income tax and in fact make money off the tax system so how do they pay "quite a bit", what percentage of income tax revenue is "quite a bit" for the bottom 50% to pay and again what would be the fair share of the top 1%? Amazing how the left harps on this canard yet cannot state clearly and concisely what fair would be. As I have stated it is just blowing smoke.

 

I didn't CLAIM anything about percentages of either party. So I do know about statistics and you just "gotta rant".

 

The bottom gets their FICA taxes reimbursed to them through the EITC which is why they actually make money off the income tax system.

 

Please explain what an effective tax rate is? The argument about total tax revenue is a red herring. For income tax, we have a progressive system where those with wealth pay more. You try to use the income taxes of the top as an argument that they pay too much. No matter how you spin it, they are not paying enough based on the wealth that they are accumulating. We have had this argument before where you start whining about the amount the top pays and the nothing that the bottom pays. You refuse to look at other taxes and just talk about income tax. I gave you another chart showing how much the various income levels pay in taxes as a percentage of their income. Again, you ignored that one.

You don't discussion an issue. You ignore anything that might weaken your argument. Carry on, little boy.

 

I might go along with that if it was done properly. We know that current payroll taxes are not covering SS and Medicare. We have had to pay off the IOUs for SS from the general fund. The best solution could be to use only the income tax system. Even states (some already do) could base the tax income on a % of the federal income. That could solve the problem of school revenue and other state programs.

 

Go look it up yourself I'm not your teacher.

The arguement about fair share of taxes is a red herring but since that is the argument you makes then tell us what percentage of income tax revenues is the fair share of the top 1% whom you claim is not paying their fair share of it.

You do realize we do not tax wealth.

Those are the taxes we are talking about and we are taking about the fair share of the income groups, you claim the top 1% is not paying their fair share of income taxes well what would be their fair share of them then. They pay 40% of income taxes while the bottom groups pays -9% if that is not fair then what would be?

I ignore your specious nonsense and discuss the salient points, now do you just want to be snarky or do you want to discuss the issue.