About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Fox' Carlson repeats falsehood that "40 percent of the country does not pay any taxes," gets corrected by guest

August 03, 2009 2:19 pm ET

From the August 3 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Fox News' Carlson falsely asserted "roughly 40 percent" of Obama's tax plan "is a handout to people who do not pay taxes"

White House's Bernstein corrects "factually incorrect" claim by Fox News host about those "who don't really pay any federal taxes"

Hannity ignored payroll taxes to claim nearly 50% don't pay taxes

Lou Dobbs falsely claimed 40 percent of working Americans "don't pay taxes"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 03, 2009 2:25 pm ET)
      1  
      The pay sales,social security income taxes in Alabama and Montana.And they pay traffic tickets and fines,in a disproportionate amount
      Report Abuse
      • Author by robyn20094113 (August 03, 2009 4:31 pm ET)
        1  
        Montana like Oregon does not have a sales tax. However In Montana it costs a fortune just to license your car every year.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 03, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
          1  
          Montana and Alamama tax a lower income,and make poor people carry a larger share of the tax burden than other states
          Report Abuse
          • Author by robyn20094113 (August 03, 2009 5:03 pm ET)
               
            You are right about that also the cost of living in Montana is very high.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Bad News (August 03, 2009 2:25 pm ET)
      3  
      Poor Gretchen, trying to play Smart
      In the Land of Brittan i think she would be called "A TarT"
      But who am i to Judge this Former Ms. America
      I have never worn a Two Piece or a Tiara.

      Speak truth to Power.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
    • Author by marco21 (August 03, 2009 2:25 pm ET)
      3  
      Her acting skills are lacking. She squeaky shocked voice at the end inspired and actual LOL from me.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pilotshark (August 03, 2009 2:27 pm ET)
      2  
      Guessing she means all the top 2% don't pay taxes and yes it would work cause they who dont pay taxes will have to pay there share.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MrBrown (August 03, 2009 2:29 pm ET)
      4  
      I defy her to look at any random person's check off the street, and find one stub that has ZERO deductions on it.

      You shop - You pay taxes.
      You work - You pay taxes

      Its part of our culture...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dmhack (August 03, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
      5  
      Love the chyron... Would Millionaire Tax Even Work?

      I say let's give it a try if the choice is between them forced to fly coach and health care reform.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (August 03, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
        7  
        No way, DM. All across this country, there are delusional dittoheads clutching their Lotto scratchers, and imagining the horror of the millionaire tax on them when they finally get that lucky ticket.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by blueline99 (August 03, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
          4  
          Since 1917 our taxes on the richest in this country has only been as low as they are today during one brief period... and that was the years leading to the Great Depression.

          From 1917 - 1921 the top tax bracket was 67% -73%

          Then there were those who decided that the rich should keep more of their money... that lasted for 10 years until the great depression in 1929.

          From 1922-1931 there was a steady cutting of the top tax rate...
          1922 (56%)
          1924 (46%)
          1925-1931 (25%)
          1932-1935 (63%)
          1936-1939 (79%)
          1940-1941 (81%)
          1942-1943 (88%)
          1944-1945 (94%)

          Then after WWII those rates remained until the late 60s
          1946-1963 (82% - 92%)

          Then there was a steady dropping of the top rate
          1964-1980 (70% -77%)
          1982-1986 (50%)
          1987-2009 (28%-35%)

          2008 we almost fell into another Great Depression...
          This time, we took the lessons from the first one and figured out how to avoid it.

          Now let's take more lessons... why not make the top tax rate 75%?

          Look at our history... the only thing I agree with the republicans is that we should return to the good ol' times of the 50s... when the top tax rate was 90%
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dmhack (August 03, 2009 3:32 pm ET)
            2  
            You're going to scare off our little right wing trolls with facts.
            Good job, blue.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by EZ4you2say (August 03, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
              5
            Who do you think creates jobs?
            The people with money, not the government. Very elementary.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by garcut (August 03, 2009 3:38 pm ET)
              3
            The top 20 percent of all income earners pay a substantial majority of all federal taxes. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in 2006, the latest year of available data, the top 20 percent of income earners paid almost 70 percent of all federal taxes. This share was 4 percent higher than in 2000, before the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

            When only looking at income taxes, the share of the top 20 percent increases even further. In 2006, the top 20 percent paid 86.3 percent of all income taxes. This was an increase of 6 percent from 2000

            So much for not paying your fair share.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by pros2pros2940 (August 03, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
              2  
              Please provide links to the lies garcut.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by garcut (August 03, 2009 3:54 pm ET)
                  1
                http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/taxdistribution.cfm
                Report Abuse
                • Author by magnolialover (August 03, 2009 4:05 pm ET)
                  2  
                  The biggest question is, not how much they are paying, but how much are they paying as a percentage of what they earn? I would bet my tax rate is actually higher than theirs.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Ward_Off_Monkey (August 03, 2009 4:11 pm ET)
                      2
                    Typical. Now you change the argument. Why don't you do a bit of research and prove your own assumption wrong?
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 03, 2009 4:28 pm ET)
                    2  
                    People on Wall Street who got all those big bonus,some with pay checks in the hundreds of mollions of dollasr,got their money as capital gains and paid 15% Federal income tax on their pay check.I paid 28% federal income tax
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by blueline99 (August 03, 2009 4:36 pm ET)
                      1  
                      Exactly... that's why they are paid as "bonuses" instead of income. If they are guaranteed in a contract than they should be income.
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Ward_Off_Monkey (August 03, 2009 6:50 pm ET)
                        1
                      Obviously you are not a CPA. That has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read. From the IRS website:
                      http://www.irs.gov/publications/p525/ar02.html#en_US_publink100098115
                      Employee Compensation
                      Generally, you must include in gross income everything you receive in payment for personal services. In addition to wages, salaries, commissions, fees, and tips, this includes other forms of compensation such as fringe benefits and stock options.

                      You should receive a Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, from your employer showing the pay you received for your services. Include your pay on line 7 of Form 1040 or Form 1040A or on line 1 of Form 1040EZ, even if you do not receive a Form W-2.

                      Also: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p525/ar02.html#en_US_publink100098119
                      Bonuses and awards. Bonuses or awards you receive for outstanding work are included in your income and should be shown on your Form W-2. These include prizes such as vacation trips for meeting sales goals. If the prize or award you receive is goods or services, you must include the fair market value of the goods or services in your income. However, if your employer merely promises to pay you a bonus or award at some future time, it is not taxable until you receive it or it is made available to you.

                      Also, bonuses are taxed either at the employees normal withholding rate elected on their W-4 if the bonuses are included with regular wages, or at a flat 25% rate if the bonus is identified and paid separately. See page 13 - http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/p15--2008.pdf
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 03, 2009 9:28 pm ET)
                        3  
                        A cpa's job is to make sure you get the maximum legal benefit when doing your taxes.That said what if you arrange the pay to look like long term capital gains.There are many legal tax avoidance schemes.There are people who get paid real good money to walk people through this maze.Are you saying this does not exist.Talking about the United States tax code.There are tax breaks congressmen have wrote in for one particular family only.You need to pay attention to the tax breaks congressmen write in for their friends.But mabe it is alright with you if a congressman writes a tax law for his friend that you pay for,long as that poor sob did not get it
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Ward_Off_Monkey (August 04, 2009 12:28 am ET)
                             
                          Show me the law or tax code regulations that allow bonuses of any sort, whether they be cash, stock, stock options, whatever, to be reported as capital gains. That is pure fallacy. The stock or stock options may generate capital gains, but in last year's market there were a helluva lot of Wall Street financial sector stocks that did that. As an aside, many companies, expecially those in the tech sector, have long used non-cash compensation such as stock options and phantom stock vested over several years for all or many employees, not just executives. Stock options create a future tax liability for the compensated employee when the option is exercised. Whether that tax liability is via ordinary income or capital gains is dependant on the type of option. Phantom stock creates a deferred cash outlay for the company while the employee has a future tax liability taxed as ordinary income when the economic benefit (increase in price of stock over grant price as compared to current price...this is paid in cash) is received by the employee.

                          Now, with all that being said, yes, the compensated employee may not recognize taxable income when incentive stock options(ISO) are received or exercised but will recognize an income tax liability when the stock is sold. The tax liability is then based on the capital gain or difference between the ultimate sales price of the stock and the price at which the employee bought the stock when the option was exercised. Of course, if the price of the stock go down after the ISO is exercised, then there is no capital gain and the employee has actually lost money. Also, there are time limitations that make it impossible for the employee to make a quick buck by timing the market and exercising the option and then selling quickly into a favorable market. If the employee sells the stock acquired via the ISO within two years of the date the ISO was granted or one year of the date the ISO was exercised then the favorable capital gains treatment is lost and the gain, if any, is reported as ordinary income and taxed as such. It is not quite the cakewalk you make it out to be and also carries an inherent amount of risk that the option price may exceed the market price of the stock in the future or that the options themselves may become worthless, thus equating to zero compensation.

                          So would you rather have stock options or cold hard cash?
                          Report Abuse
                • Author by blueline99 (August 03, 2009 4:24 pm ET)
                  3  
                  Thanks for the link... did you look at the effective tax liability...
                  the top 1% paid 28.3% of the liability despite owning 38.6% of the wealth in this country...

                  The top 10% only pays 55.4% of the tax liability when they own 80% of the wealth in this country.

                  So they need to pay more...

                  We are talking about tax increases that will effect 30 million people that own 80% of the wealth in this country... that leaves 270 million of us fighting for the remaining 20%

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Ward_Off_Monkey (August 03, 2009 8:15 pm ET)
                      3
                    Income taxes are paid, by definition, on income. Why would increased net worth require paying additional income taxes? Not saying that all the wealthy acquired their wealth this way, but if I am very frugal and pay my mortgage off early, carry no other debt and therefore pay no finance charges, and carefully monitor my spending and save as much as possible, should I pay more taxes when I have saved $1 million? $500 thousand? $250 thousand? What if I have saved that money to put my kids through college, making them the first college graduates in my extended family? Should I still pay more taxes because I carefully saved my money and did not waste it on frivolous things?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 03, 2009 9:39 pm ET)
                      3 1
                      You don't pay taxes on money saved,you pay pay taxes on any money that saved money makes.There are tax breaks in place for that income.And if you use it to put your kids through school,there are additional tax breaks for that,But you seem to be against those kind of tax breaks. pwnd????????????????
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Ward_Off_Monkey (August 04, 2009 12:28 am ET)
                           
                        Read the post I replied to and then my response. Maybe it will make sense then. blueline99 said that the top 10% pays only 55.4% of the tax liability but owns 80% of the wealth, therefore they should pay more. That's basically saying they should pay taxes on money saved, whether it's money in the bank or money in businesses or money in property. Now does my post make sense?

                        Also, how in the world did you get that I was opposed to tax incentives for education? I was questioning why, if I had carefully saved but as a result fell in one of the higher wealth brackets (not income but wealth), should I pay a higher percentage tax rate just because of my thrift.

                        Oh yeah. The pwnd was just for pros2pros2940 since garcut provided the CBO link that supported his "lies" as pros put it. Better to research before one spews accusations.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by Ward_Off_Monkey (August 03, 2009 8:29 pm ET)
                      1
                    btw, you act as if the available wealth is a fixed amount. Look at the history of this nation and how much wealth has been created by the hard work and innovations of our predecessors. Have we suddenly hit a wall, a maximum amount of wealth that can be created and therefore only that remaining 20% is available to be split amongst the 270 million of us(and our progeny) who don't fall in the wealthiest 10%? Ownership of wealth is not a zero sum game.

                    Granted, various segments of society that have money and power may create obstacles that make it harder for the less fortunate to enter their realm, but most of those people are politicians already. The ones that aren't are mostly too busy working to worry about whether some poor schmuck busting his but for an education and decent job is interloping in their territory.

                    Sitting on your ass complaining about the percieved inequities of life because someone else has more than you does nothing to contribute to society as a whole or grow the economy therefore creating more wealth for all to share. That type of non-productive activity only creates class envy while instilling the idea that I am due something just because I know enough to want something better and does nothing to instill the ethic that maybe I can achieve something better through hard work and perseverance.
                    Report Abuse
                • Author by Ward_Off_Monkey (August 03, 2009 8:06 pm ET)
                    5
                  pwnd!
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by Ward_Off_Monkey (August 03, 2009 4:10 pm ET)
                  5
                pwnd!
                Report Abuse
            • Author by pros2pros2940 (August 03, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
              3  
              Seems garcut was cribbing this false data from that bastion of right wing propaganda the Heritage Foundation.

              Nice........talk about creative accounting
              Report Abuse
            • Author by blueline99 (August 03, 2009 4:08 pm ET)
              2  
              those are great statistics that those with the wealth use to say they pay more than they should...

              Here are some facts...

              Various sociological statistics suggest the severity of wealth inequality "with the top 10% possessing 80% of all financial assets [and] the bottom 90% holding only 20% of all financial wealth."[2]

              So you're right... they aren't paying there fair share, they should be paying more.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Ward_Off_Monkey (August 04, 2009 12:40 am ET)
                   
                They aren't paying their fair share and should be paying more only if your goal is redistribution of wealth and not fair taxation of income. If your goal is fair taxation of income, then as they are already paying the lion's share of taxes it would seem they are already paying their fair share. I guess it all depends on if you are willing to let those that work hard keep some of the reward of their hard work or if you would rather penalize those that work hard so you can give a good portion of their earnings to those that are unwilling to work. Obviously there is some in between in this as there are many people who work very hard all their lives and don't end up wealthy or necessarily even financially comfortable. However, penalizing someone else and giving to the many in our society who aren't willing to get off their lazy butts and put in the effort to make their own situation better through hard work and additional education is not the way to better society as a whole. All that approach does is create an entitlement class that lives only to live parasitically on those who are willing to work.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by blueline99 (August 04, 2009 9:30 am ET)
                     
                  If you look at the history of the taxation at the top most levels, we are at the lowest level since the Great Depression... this country had 40 years of 70%-80% taxes at the highest levels.... it was Reagan who brough the top rates downs in the mid-80s and begun the greatest re-distribution of wealth to the top 1%.

                  If the top 1% had 90% of the wealth in this country would that be right? Is that the kind of country you want, because that is the direction we are headed.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 03, 2009 4:17 pm ET)
              3 1
              If the top 20% pays an increasing share of taxes don't you see what the problem is? People incomes are not keeping up so they are dropping off the tax rolls.Working people have been getting screwed on wages for a long time.I am not talking out my but.I make six figures net each year.So I do pay my fair share of taxes.And I have no objections to some of my tax money being used to increase skill levels there by increasing their income so they pay taxes.This much I do know because I am not a zillionaire every time the conservatives/republicans work to reduce wages my taxes go up.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by blueline99 (August 03, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
                3  
                it is the illusion of wealth that has grown the Republican party, but the reality is that when they talk about the top 10% owning 80% of the wealth of this country... it's unlikely that you are truly one of them.

                The problem is that the top 20% or roughly 60 million people... are getting lumped in with the top 1% that owns 38% of the wealth in this country.

                Someone who makes 100,000/yr should not be in the same category as a CEO who just pulled in $20 million, but they are.



                Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 04, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
                 
              "When only looking at income taxes..." - garcut

              Why are we only looking at "income" taxes. Do the other taxes people pay not count? Does the money that pays these taxes not count as money? This is the kind of statement that shows you to be a partisan idealogue rather than a seeker of truth.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by wookie (August 03, 2009 2:48 pm ET)
      5  
      What I love about this line of reasoning is how the wingnuts use the consolodation of wealth at the top from Reaganomics to argue that the rich need yet another tax cut.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by seeryer (August 03, 2009 2:49 pm ET)
      5  
      If conservatives have such a solid argument for everything why can't they just be honest? Why not say "40% of the country does not pay federal income taxes" instead of "40% of the country does not pay any tax." How hard is it to be accurate if you have the argument on your side? Apparently, they don't have the facts on their side.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by garcut (August 03, 2009 3:15 pm ET)
        8
      Please explain the difference between fascism, socialism and the goals of the Democratic party. They all promote class warfare and want to equalize out comes by attacking anyone in our "free" society that earns more than others do. If you have to worry about government taking what you have earned because the mob thinks you have more than your fair share, then you do not live in a free society at all. Let's see rich bad, banks bad, insurance companies bad, and etc....

      Vladimir Ilyich Lenin quote:
      The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.

      Karl Marx quote:
      Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation.

      Karl Marx quote:
      My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by harley (August 03, 2009 3:19 pm ET)
        3  

        Quoting your heroes. How telling.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by harley (August 03, 2009 3:19 pm ET)
        1  

        Quoting your heroes. How telling.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by watershed (August 03, 2009 3:23 pm ET)
           
        To paraphrase Taibbi- the peasant mentality rears it's stupid head.

        You know you’re a peasant when you worship the very people who are right now, this minute, conning you and taking your s**t.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by TheKidFromKountyMeath (August 03, 2009 3:27 pm ET)
        2  
        Okay, first of all, fascism and socialism are kinda, you know, opposites, which might account for why Mussolini and Hitler had all the ones they could find imprisoned and killed. Find a source other than Jonah Goldberg.
        Second of all, all these steps the Obama administration is taking (taking control of GM, etc.) are to SAVE capitalism. And maybe you didn't notice (you are, after all, a troll), but unless you're making 250k (you're not), you just got a tax cut.
        Finally, oooh, you Googled scary Marx and Lenin quotes that have nothing to do with anything. I bow to your superior argument.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Ward_Off_Monkey (August 03, 2009 8:37 pm ET)
             
          Not exactly, as they are both Statist forms of government where control of the economy is centralized often including government ownership of industry in many or all sectors.

          So what is different about fascism and socialism? Remember now, the Nazis were Socialists, at least with respect to those German citizens that were considered to be Aryans.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (August 03, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
        2  
        Karl Marx quote:
        Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation.

        Isn't that the line that the right uses to argue against government programs? Isn't that what you guys call tyranny of the majority? It seems like you're on Marx's side on this one.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by dmhack (August 03, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
        1  
        Wow. That's a new approach... quoting Marx and Lenin.
        Thanks, comrade.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by hisroyalmattness (August 03, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
        2  
        Here are the characteristics of Fascism:
        1. Right Wing: Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology, though it can be opportunistic.
        2. Nationalism: Fascism places a very strong emphasis on patriotism and nationalism. Criticism of the nation's main ideals, especially war, is lambasted as unpatriotic at best, and treason at worst. State propaganda consistently broadcasts threats of attack, while justifying pre-emptive war. Fascism invariably seeks to instill in its people the warrior mentality: to always be vigilant, wary of strangers and suspicious of foreigners.
        3. Hierarchy: Fascist society is ruled by a righteous leader, who is supported by an elite secret vanguard of capitalists. Hierarchy is prevalent throughout all aspects of society – every street, every workplace, every school, will have its local Hitler, part police-informer, part bureaucrat – and society is prepared for war at all times. The absolute power of the social hierarchy prevails over everything, and thus a totalitarian society is formed. Representative government is acceptable only if it can be controlled and regulated, direct democracy (e.g. Communism) is the greatest of all crimes. Any who oppose the social hierarchy of fascism will be imprisoned or executed.
        4. Anti-equality: Fascism loathes the principles of economic equality and disdains equality between immigrant and citizen. Some forms of fascism extend the fight against equality into other areas: gender, sexual, minority or religious rights, for example. 5. Religious: Fascism contains a strong amount of reactionary religious beliefs, harking back to times when religion was strict, potent, and pure. Nearly all Fascist societies are Christian, and are supported by Catholic and Protestant churches.
        6. Capitalist: Fascism does not require revolution to exist in captialist society: fascists can be elected into office (though their disdain for elections usually means manipulation of the electoral system). They view parliamentary and congressional systems of government to be inefficient and weak, and will do their best to minimize its power over their policy agenda. Fascism exhibits the worst kind of capitalism where corporate power is absolute, and all vestiges of workers' rights are destroyed.
        7. War: Fascism is capitalism at the stage of impotent imperialism. War can create markets that would not otherwise exist by wreaking massive devastation on a society, which then requires reconstruction! Fascism can thus "liberate" the survivors, provide huge loans to that society so fascist corporations can begin the process of rebuilding.
        8. Voluntarist Ideology: Fascism adopts a certain kind of “voluntarism;” they believe that an act of will, if sufficiently powerful, can make something true. Thus all sorts of ideas about racial inferiority, historical destiny, even physical science, are supported by means of violence, in the belief that they can be made true. It is this sense that Fascism is subjectivist.
        9. Anti-Modern: Fascism loathes all kinds of modernism, especially creativity in the arts, whether acting as a mirror for life (where it does not conform to the Fascist ideal), or expressing deviant or innovative points of view. Fascism invariably burns books and victimises artists, and artists which do not promote the fascists ideals are seen as “decadent.” Fascism is hostile to broad learning and interest in other cultures, since such pursuits threaten the dominance of fascist myths. The peddling of conspiracy theories is usually substituted for the objective study of history.
        Just looking at the chrematistics of Fascism any person can see it is the opposite of both socialism and democratic party.
        You like quotes so here is one from Benito Mussolini
        Liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

        Adam Smith the father of Capitalism was for a progressive tax structure, so it does he also think rich bad, banks bad, insurance companies bad, and etc
        Report Abuse
      • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 03, 2009 6:42 pm ET)
        1  
        There has been class war fair for the last 30 years in the USA.1% went against 99% of the USA people and won.The goals of the Democrat party-- not the conservative(republian)democratic party-- is to call a cease fire and end this war on the American people,your self included,because you ain't no zillionaire.And do the right thing.Why do you have a problem with that?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rtwmd1230 (August 03, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
      1  
      Pat Cadell has sold himself out to be Faux's resident "liberal.

      What a disgusting human being.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (August 03, 2009 3:56 pm ET)
      1  
      From the website of sociologist of power G. William Domhoff’s "Who Rules America", on Power & Wealth in America:

      In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

      In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%…

      …In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 36.7% of all privately held stock, 63.8% of financial securities, and 61.9% of business equity.

      The top 10% have 85% to 90% of stock, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate.

      Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America…

      …According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes—which they always call "death taxes" for P.R. reasons—would take a huge bite out of government revenues for the benefit of less than 1% of the population.

      …Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions

      :

      Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%

      A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the ‘80s, ‘90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007).
      Report Abuse
    • Author by congero6189599 (August 03, 2009 3:58 pm ET)
      1  
      Don't you just love that look they all seem to get when they think thye've said something smart.I mean they ALLLLL do it and it's so annoying and it's usually something stupid and their wrong on it!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MRF (August 03, 2009 4:00 pm ET)
      1  
      What do you expect from an ignorant Anita Bryant wannabee.

      BTW: Will someone please ask how much does the adopted U.S. citizen Mr. Murdoch pay in the U.S or does he shelter it in the Caymans.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (August 03, 2009 4:06 pm ET)
      1  
      Another show of how garcut is pushing Heritage lies

      The average tax rate of the wealthiest 1% fell to its lowest level in at least 18 years,”[/b] allowing the wealthiest 1% of Americans to garner “the highest share of the nation’s adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929.”


      The “average tax rate in 2006 for the top 1%, based on adjusted gross income, was 22.8%,” down from “28.9% in 1996, and…24% in 1988″:

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121677287690575589.html?mod=special_page_cam
      paign2008_leftbox

      Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (August 03, 2009 4:20 pm ET)
      1  
      additionally, total gov't tax receipts from "income taxes" and from "Payroll taxes" are roughly equal.

      Now, once a person has made 106K (aprox)they no longer pay payroll taxes.

      Guess Heritage left that one out

      Along with state taxes like sales taxes, excise taxes, gasoline taxes paid to the feds of around 18.0 cents a gallon to fund roads.

      Wonder who pays more in gasoline taxes ?
      Report Abuse