why do Democrats HATE people keeping more of their $$$?

[catamount man]

I want a LEGITIMATE reason Democrats. Why do you HATE when people get to keep more of their money due to taxes not being raised? Again, LEGITIMATE answers. Thanks.

[dbackjon]

It is not hate. It is common sense.

Graduated, progressive tax rates are what made the country grow.

The concentration of wealth in this country is killing it.

[ASUG8]

It is not hate. It is common sense.

Graduated, progressive tax rates are what made the country grow.

The concentration of wealth in this country is killing it.

http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/tax-brackets/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't we have that already? The more you make, the more you pay.

[Skjellyfetti]

http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/tax-brackets/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't we have that already? The more you make, the more you pay.

And the middle class is shrinking and the wealthier are wealthier.

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/th ... l?tickers=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;^DJI,^GSPC,SPY,MCD,WMT,XRT,DIA

[dbackjon]

It is not hate. It is common sense.

Graduated, progressive tax rates are what made the country grow.

The concentration of wealth in this country is killing it.

http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/tax-brackets/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't we have that already? The more you make, the more you pay.

There needs to be a greater rate on the wealthy.

[ASUG8]

http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/tax-brackets/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't we have that already? The more you make, the more you pay.

There needs to be a greater rate on the wealthy.

From 2007, but you get the picture.

2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/no ... -the-taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dbackjon]

There needs to be a greater rate on the wealthy.

From 2007, but you get the picture.

2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/no ... -the-taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's almost feudal these days - the wealthy elite have hoodwinked the masses into defending their interests at the expense of the masses' interests.

Quite sad, actually.


As for your source...

Some AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy.[7] More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions. Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities; Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow; former Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an AEI visiting fellow; and former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, now an AEI visiting scholar. Other prominent individuals affiliated with AEI include Kevin Hassett, Frederick W. Kagan, Leon Kass, Charles Murray, Michael Novak, Norman J. Ornstein, Richard Perle, Radek Sikorski, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Peter J. Wallison.[8]

[ASUG8]

Slightly different numbers, similar conclusion, mainstream media source based on CBO reports....I guess I can keep looking until I find the answer you want.

Recent calculations by the Congressional Budget Office of U.S. tax rates show a highly progressive system. (The numbers are based on 2004 data, but the tax code has not changed much since then.) The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent.

At the very top of the income distribution, the CBO reports even higher tax rates. The richest 1 percent has average income of $1,259,700 and forks over 31.1 percent of its income to the federal government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/busin ... 80311.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[D1B]

I want a LEGITIMATE reason Democrats. Why do you HATE when people get to keep more of their money due to taxes not being raised? Again, LEGITIMATE answers. Thanks.

Settle down Cat Man. None of us hates tax breaks.

[SDHornet]

http://www.obliviousinvestor.com/tax-brackets/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Don't we have that already? The more you make, the more you pay.

And the middle class is shrinking and the wealthier are wealthier.

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/th ... l?tickers=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;^DJI,^GSPC,SPY,MCD,WMT,XRT,DIA

This is great news…now there is more money that will trickle down. We are all saved!!!

[SDHornet]

I want a LEGITIMATE reason Democrats. Why do you HATE when people get to keep more of their money due to taxes not being raised? Again, LEGITIMATE answers. Thanks.

Settle down Cat Man. None of us hates tax breaks.

[houndawg]

There needs to be a greater rate on the wealthy.

From 2007, but you get the picture.

2. What income group pays the most federal income taxes today?

The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/no ... -the-taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The wealthiest 1% "earn" only 19% of the income, but they control 83% of stocks, and received 66% of growth in income between 2001 and 2007? Sounds like somebody is choosing their definitions very carefully.

[OL FU]

I have a difficult time understanding how the tax rates we are discussing are creating the disparity between the upper and middle class. The middle class (at least the middle middle and the lower middle) pay very little in income taxes compared to the past. I seem to recall that about 50% of the people in the country don't pay income taxes at all. And when we had confiscatory rates 75% and 90% the damn truth is that nobody paid those. Between down right cheating and tax loopholes people did not pay those rates.

The problem is that there is a global economy where we not longer dominate the means of production. Rich people can make money anywhere. The middle class has to make it with jobs here in this country. Raising the rates won't change that in the least and in fact just might make it worse.

But I am all ears if you have a contrary argument that makes some sense.

[Ivytalk]

From 2007, but you get the picture.



http://www.american.com/archive/2007/no ... -the-taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The wealthiest 1% "earn" only 19% of the income, but they control 83% of stocks, and received 66% of growth in income between 2001 and 2007? Sounds like somebody is choosing their definitions very carefully.

Yep, houndawg, all them dog-ass lazy rich people are sitting by their pools, drinking fine wine, lighting cigars with hundred-dollar bills and exploiting the masses. They're certainly not working 80-hour weeks running businesses and giving near-record amounts to charity.

[SuperHornet]

The problem here is the definition of "rich." The Obamites want to define it at $250K. That's hardly "rich," especially in most urban areas.

Set it at about $5M, and then we're talking.

[AZGrizFan]

From 2007, but you get the picture.



http://www.american.com/archive/2007/no ... -the-taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's almost feudal these days - the wealthy elite have hoodwinked the masses into defending their interests at the expense of the masses' interests.

Quite sad, actually.


As for your source...

Some AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy.[7] More than twenty AEI scholars and fellows served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions. Among the prominent former government officials now affiliated with AEI are former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, now an AEI senior fellow; former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities; Lynne Cheney, a longtime AEI senior fellow; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, now an AEI senior fellow; former Dutch member of parliament Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an AEI visiting fellow; and former deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, now an AEI visiting scholar. Other prominent individuals affiliated with AEI include Kevin Hassett, Frederick W. Kagan, Leon Kass, Charles Murray, Michael Novak, Norman J. Ornstein, Richard Perle, Radek Sikorski, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Peter J. Wallison.[8]

So, is the DATA faulty, or do you just not like these guys?

[HI54UNI]

It's because Democrat politicians are much smarter than the rest of us and therefore better know how to spend OUR money.

[BlueHen86]

Seems to me the big difference between the D's and the R's is that the D's actually want to be able to pay for their pork, the R's want to put it on a tab.

Before we cut taxes we need to cut spending. Cutting taxes without cutting spending might be the worst thing we can do.

[travelinman67]

This is getting off topic...

CM's question is "why dems hate people keeping their money...".

Fundamentally, this argument is brought up daily on the Hill...

...Dem's carefully crafting their statements to phrase "cuts in taxes" as "cutting government" or "giving XXXX millions/billions of government's money". The basis is that Dem's see "income" as being derived from, and belonging to government, with the citizen's being allowed to keep a portion of their "income". This view is SOOOOO inappropriate in light of our country's founding, moving back to a feudal perspective, in true comparison, not just as supplanters of overlords (wealthy, corporate greed...as Jon implied), but in support of the King (government).

...been said before, but...

...the Dems have become the party AGAINST the common man, supporting government's interests FIRST...

...and the Reps have become the party of smaller govt., ultimately, in support of individual rights and empowement.

[BlueHen86]

This is getting off topic...

CM's question is "why dems hate people keeping their money...".

Fundamentally, this argument is brought up daily on the Hill...

...Dem's carefully crafting their statements to phrase "cuts in taxes" as "cutting government" or "giving XXXX millions/billions of government's money". The basis is that Dem's see "income" as being derived from, and belonging to government, with the citizen's being allowed to keep a portion of their "income". This view is SOOOOO inappropriate in light of our country's founding, moving back to a feudal perspective, in true comparison, not just as supplanters of overlords (wealthy, corporate greed...as Jon implied), but in support of the King (government).

...been said before, but...

...the Dems have become the party AGAINST the common man, supporting government's interests FIRST...

...and the Reps have become the party of smaller govt., ultimately, in support of individual rights and empowement.

Maybe in the land of Oz. Here in the real world both parties are for bigger Gov. and more spending.

[Ivytalk]

Seems to me the big difference between the D's and the R's is that the D's actually want to be able to pay for their pork, the R's want to put it on a tab.

Before we cut taxes we need to cut spending. Cutting taxes without cutting spending might be the worst thing we can do.

So call your good buddy Senator Chris "Earmarks Is Good" Coons and tell him to start whacking programs!

[BlueHen86]

Seems to me the big difference between the D's and the R's is that the D's actually want to be able to pay for their pork, the R's want to put it on a tab.

Before we cut taxes we need to cut spending. Cutting taxes without cutting spending might be the worst thing we can do.

So call your good buddy Senator Chris "Earmarks Is Good" Coons and tell him to start whacking programs!

Why would he listen to me? I'm a registered Republican and I live in Pa.

[dbackjon]

This is getting off topic...

CM's question is "why dems hate people keeping their money...".

Fundamentally, this argument is brought up daily on the Hill...

...Dem's carefully crafting their statements to phrase "cuts in taxes" as "cutting government" or "giving XXXX millions/billions of government's money". The basis is that Dem's see "income" as being derived from, and belonging to government, with the citizen's being allowed to keep a portion of their "income". This view is SOOOOO inappropriate in light of our country's founding, moving back to a feudal perspective, in true comparison, not just as supplanters of overlords (wealthy, corporate greed...as Jon implied), but in support of the King (government).

...been said before, but...

...the Dems have become the party AGAINST the common man, supporting government's interests FIRST...

...and the Reps have become the party of smaller govt., ultimately, in support of individual rights and empowement.

I think you have things backwards, T-man. Republicans are so far away from doing thing for they common good, and the common man.

To say that the Reps are the party of the smaller government is laughable. Get back to reality, dude.

[travelinman67]

This is getting off topic...

CM's question is "why dems hate people keeping their money...".

Fundamentally, this argument is brought up daily on the Hill...

...Dem's carefully crafting their statements to phrase "cuts in taxes" as "cutting government" or "giving XXXX millions/billions of government's money". The basis is that Dem's see "income" as being derived from, and belonging to government, with the citizen's being allowed to keep a portion of their "income". This view is SOOOOO inappropriate in light of our country's founding, moving back to a feudal perspective, in true comparison, not just as supplanters of overlords (wealthy, corporate greed...as Jon implied), but in support of the King (government).

...been said before, but...

...the Dems have become the party AGAINST the common man, supporting government's interests FIRST...

...and the Reps have become the party of smaller govt., ultimately, in support of individual rights and empowement.

I think you have things backwards, T-man. Republicans are so far away from doing thing for they common good, and the common man.

To say that the Reps are the party of the smaller government is laughable. Get back to reality, dude.

1 word: Stimulus.

[D1B]

I think you have things backwards, T-man. Republicans are so far away from doing thing for they common good, and the common man.

To say that the Reps are the party of the smaller government is laughable. Get back to reality, dude.

1 word: Stimulus.

I word: MilitaryIndustrialComplexWaronDrugsPrisonIndustrialComplexIraqWarMissleDefenseHoaxStarWars