Fox's Year Of Class Warfare
In 2011, as President Obama and congressional Democrats pushed for increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, Fox ramped up its defense of the rich while accusing Obama of attempting to incite a class war. Along the way, Fox relentlessly attacked poor and unemployed Americans, union workers who fought back against attempts by Republicans to strip their right to collectively bargain, and the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has been highlighting increasing income inequality in America. Here, Media Matters looks back at Fox's year of class warfare.
"We Should Be Supporting" The "Mega-Wealthy": Fox Fiercely Defended The Rich
Throughout 2011, Fox figures obsessively defended the wealthy against any possible tax increases proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats -- even claiming that the rich should pay less in taxes while the poor should pay more. Some Fox figures claimed that "most Americans say" that "patriotism is paying less taxes," while others claimed that those making $200,000 a year are not rich and that increasing their taxes would be unfair.
Laura Ingraham Complained That Raising The Tax Rate For The Wealthy Is "Demoniz[ing] The Rich." On the April 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham referred to a plan to raise the taxes of the wealthiest Americans as a plan that "demoni[zes] the rich." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/12/11, via Media Matters]
Fox Regular Jonathan Hoenig on Cashin' In: "Wealthy Earners Should Pay Even Less. The Poor Should Pay Much More" In Taxes. On the March 5 edition of Fox News' Cashin' In, Fox News regular Jonathan Hoenig said: "Wealthy earners should pay even less. The poor should pay much more" in taxes. [Fox News, Cashin' In, 3/5/11, via Media Matters]
Peter Johnson Jr.: "Most Americans Say" That "Patriotism Is Paying Less Taxes." On the April 18 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. said: "What we have on this tax day is a White House that says, 'If you don't pay more taxes, then you're not being patriotic.' There's a lot of other Americans, and most Americans, who say the opposite: that patriotism is paying less taxes." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/18/11, via Media Matters]
Kilmeade On Taxes: "We Should Be Supporting" The "Mega-Wealthy," Not "Punish[ing] Them." On the July 22 edition of Fox & Friends, guest Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), said that "we can't ... continue to cut taxes for the mega-wealthy in this country when we have a debt and deficit problem." Co-host Brian Kilmeade replied: "The mega-wealthy are paying the majority of taxes for the entire nation, and they're the ones who are going to bring us out of this. You would think, rather than punish them, we should be supporting them." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 7/22/11]
Fox Continued To Claim That $200,000 Per Year Income Is Not Rich. On the April 21 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson suggested that people making $200,000 a year in income are not rich, saying of Obama's plan to let tax cuts for the wealthy expire: "It's not just billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg who may pay more taxes. ... It's the people making $200,000 and above. There's a huge disparity between that and the billionaires." Carlson's comment followed many similar remarks Fox News anchors made in 2010, when they repeatedly claimed someone making $200,000 or $250,000 per year is "not rich." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/21/11, via Media Matters]
Fox Used "Misleading" Statistic To Claim The Number Of Millionaires Is Decreasing And That Obama's "Plan To Redistribute The Wealth Is Working." On the August 18 edition of Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney used a Wall Street Journal editorial to claim that "[t]he number of millionaires, of people making the million dollars a year, [is] down very, very sharply." The August 20 edition of Fox & Friends Saturday echoed this claim and suggested it showed that Obama's "plan to redistribute the wealth is working."
- In Fact, Economists, Experts Called WSJ Editorial "Misleading" For Using A "Narrower Measure Of Worth." Economists and experts contacted by Media Matters said the Journal's definition of "millionaire" was "misleading" because it was based on households' income, rather than using the more traditional measure of wealth or investible assets. Both the Tax Policy Center and the Center for Economic and Policy Research have pointed out that in fact the wealth of the wealthiest Americans has increased dramatically in the past few decades. [Media Matters, 8/18/11; Fox News, Fox & Friends Saturday, 8/20/11, via Media Matters]
For more, see:
Doocy: Taxing The Wealthy Is "So Last Week"
Steyn Ignores Record-High Wealth Of Top 1 Percent To Push Tax Break For Wealthy
They "Prefer Not To Go To Work": Fox Repeatedly Attacked Poor And Unemployed Americans
Poor and unemployed Americans were not spared from vicious attacks from Fox in 2011. Fox figures suggested that unemployed Americans are lazy, while the poor were scolded for not being suitably "ashamed" for their poverty and for lacking a "richness in spirit." Fox also seized on a Heritage Foundation report about the ownership of appliances among the poor to downplay the hardships faced by Americans in poverty.
John Stossel: People Affected By Government Shutdown "Shouldn't Be Getting Those Handouts Anyway." On the April 6 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, while talking about a possible government shutdown, Fox Business host John Stossel claimed that "most of us" wouldn't notice a shutdown and that those "who would notice shouldn't be getting those handouts anyway." [Fox News, Your World with Neil Cavuto, 4/6/11, via Media Matters]
Ben Stein Claimed That "A Lot Of" The Unemployed "Would Not Prefer To Go To Work." On the April 30 broadcast of Fox News' Cavuto on Business, Stein said that "a lot of" unemployed Americans "would not prefer to go to work." [Fox Business, Cavuto on Business, 4/30/11, via Media Matters]
Fox Business Scolded Poor People For Not Being "Ashamed" Enough By Their Poverty. During the May 19 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Co., Varney attacked anti-poverty programs as evidence that the U.S. now has an "entitlement mentality." Fox contributor Charles Payne then scolded people in poverty for not being "embarrassed" about needing public assistance:
PAYNE: [T]here's no doubt that these are good programs. I think the real narrative here, though, is that people aren't embarrassed by it. People aren't ashamed by it. In other words, there was a time when people were embarrassed to be on food stamps. There was a time when people were embarrassed to be on unemployment for six months, let alone demanding to be on it for more than two years.
I think that's what Stu is trying to say, is that when the president says Wall Street is at fault, so, you are entitled to get anything that you want from the government, because it's not really your fault, no longer is the man being told to look in the mirror and cast down a judgment on himself. It's someone else's fault. So food stamps, unemployment, all of this stuff, is something that they probably earned in some indirect way. [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 5/19/11, via Media Matters]
Steve Doocy: "The Progressive Income Tax Has Not Been So Fair." On the August 3 edition of Fox & Friends, the co-hosts repeatedly called for taxes to be raised on the lowest-income Americans. Carlson said: "Most people would say, hey, things should be fair. But what does that mean when you factor in that 50 percent of the nation doesn't even pay federal income tax? Is that fair?" Doocy later said: "You know, historically, the tax system in this country, the progressive income tax, has not been so fair." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/3/11, via Media Matters]
Fox Hosts Hyped Appliance Ownership To Downplay Hardship Of Poverty In America. In July, Fox News hosts cited a Heritage Foundation report about the ownership of appliances among the poor in America to downplay the hardships of the poor in the U.S. On the July 20 edition of his Fox News show, Bill O'Reilly asked, "So, how can you be so poor and have all this stuff?" [Media Matters, 7/22/11]
Stuart Varney On Low-Income Americans: "Many Of Them Have Things -- What They Lack Is The Richness Of Spirit." During the August 25 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Co. at Night, host Stuart Varney hyped a Heritage Foundation study showing that many Americans in poverty own appliances, saying: "The image we have of poor people as starving and living in squalor really is not accurate. Many of them have things -- what they lack is the richness of spirit. That's my opinion." [Fox Business, Varney & Co. at Night, 8/25/11, via Media Matters]
For more, see:
Fox's Monica Crowley: "Entitlements Are Narcotics" That People "Get Addicted" To
Stossel Associates Food Stamps Usage With "Teaching People To Be Dependent"
Attacks On The Social Safety Net
Fox figures and guests repeatedly attacked spending on social safety net programs such as Social Security, food stamps, and unemployment insurance. They repeatedly claimed that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and questioned the stimulative effect of unemployment insurance during an economic downturn.
MINIMUM WAGE
Fox Guest Peter Schiff: "One Of The Most Anti-Poor People Rules Is The Minimum Wage." On the September 21 edition of Fox & Friends, Kilmeade hosted author and businessman Peter Schiff, who claimed that minimum wage rules negatively affect employment for young and poor people. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/21/11, via Media Matters]
Gary B. Smith: "It's Not Just Wrong To Say Minimum Wage Is Good ... I Think It's Irresponsible." On the September 3 edition of Fox News' Bulls & Bears, Fox News contributor Gary B. Smith claimed that "it's not just wrong to say minimum wage is good, it's -- I think it's irresponsible." [Fox News, Bulls & Bears, 9/3/11, via Media Matters]
SOCIAL SECURITY
Eric Bolling: "You Can't Disagree" That Social Security "Is A Ponzi Scheme." During the September 8 broadcast of Fox & Friends, guest host Eric Bolling and host Brian Kilmeade discussed Gov. Rick Perry's (R-TX) claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Bolling concluded that "you can't disagree that [Social Security] is a Ponzi scheme." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/8/11, via Media Matters]
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Steve Moore: "How Do You Put More People To Work By Giving People More Money Not To Be Working?" During the September 5 broadcast of Fox News' America's Newsroom, guest host Gregg Jarrett and The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore dismissed the simulative effect of unemployment insurance by asking, "How do you put more people to work by giving people more money not to be working?" [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 9/5/11, via Media Matters]
For the truth on the stimulative effect of unemployment insurance, SEE HERE.
FOOD STAMPS
Glenn Beck Likened Food Stamps To "Cakes and Circuses" Used By Roman Emperors To "Control The People." During the June 7 broadcast of Fox News' Glenn Beck, which has since been canceled, host Glenn Beck claimed that food stamps were comparable to "cakes and circuses" used by Roman Emperors to "control the people." From the broadcast:
BECK: Cakes and circuses, think of this. Given the cakes, can anybody give me an example of cakes being handed out by our government? Anybody hand -- if you are the emperor of Rome you gave people cake. Well, we are not giving people cakes now, but food -- food stamps. You want to control the people, the emperor knew, give the people cake and then entertain them. Isn't it interesting how entertainment -- we're not, really, really. What difference -- what are you going to do about this? [Fox News Channel, Glenn Beck, 6/7/11, via Media Matters]
THE SOCIAL COMPACT
Bill O'Reilly: The Social Compact Is "The Government... Tak[ing] From The Wealthy And Giv[ing] To The Poor." During the April 18 broadcast of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed that the "social compact" or "social contract" has helped lead to the U.S. facing "ruin because it owes more than $14 trillion dollars." He further claimed the social compact means "the government must take from the wealthy and give to the poor." [Fox News Channel, The O'Reilly Factor, 4/18/11, via Media Matters]
For more, see:
Fox Celebrates Labor Day By Denying Stimulative Effect Of Unemployment Insurance
Carlson Wonders: Have "Entitlement Programs Really Made Us A Better Nation?"
Angry Varney Says It "Takes" His "Breath Away" That Obama Dared To Praise U.S. Social Safety Net
Zombie Lie: 50 Percent Of Americans Don't Pay Taxes
Throughout 2011, Fox News figures repeatedly advanced the false claim that 50 percent of Americans don't pay any taxes. Fox figures regularly used the falsehood to argue it isn't "fair" that the wealthy pay the "bulk" of taxes while half the country doesn't pay "any at taxes at all." In reality, while the bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay little federal income tax, they still pay payroll and sales taxes, and in many cases, state and local taxes as well.
Neil Cavuto: "More than Half Of American Households ... Do Not Pay Any Taxes At All." During the July 27 broadcast of Your World, host Neil Cavuto claimed that "the rich already pay a lot in taxes" and said that "more than half of American households ... do not pay any taxes at all." He then asked, "Is that fair?" [Fox News, Your World, 7/27/11, via Media Matters]
Kilmeade: "Fifty-One Percent Of The Country Isn't Paying Any Taxes At All." During the July 26 broadcast of Fox & Friends, Kilmeade, in an attempt to rebut the idea that the wealthy should pay more taxes, claimed, "Fifty-one percent of the country isn't paying any taxes at all. And you have the people who are paying the bulk of the taxes being called out for not paying more." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 7/26/11, via Media Matters]
For the truth about the false claim that "51 percent of the country" doesn't pay any taxes, SEE HERE.
For more, see:
Hannity Repeats Falsehood That "50 Percent Of Americans Don't Pay Taxes"
"Violent" "Angry Mob[s]": Fox's Relentless Assault On Unions
From the Wisconsin statehouse protests for collective bargaining rights to the Boeing and National Labor Relations Board conflict, Fox News figures continued their assault on unions in 2011. Fox figures called unions, union protesters, and their leaders "angry mob[s]," "violent," and "thug[s]." Others claimed unions represent "useless workers" like "kindergarten teachers" and said unions have "destroyed every company in which they've been intimately involved."
Jonathan Hoenig: "Unions Have Destroyed Every Company In Which They've Been Intimately Involved." On the November 12 edition of Fox News' Cashin' In, Hoenig claimed, "Unions have destroyed every company in which they've been involved." [Fox News, Cashin' In, 11/12/11, via Media Matters]
Peter Johnson Jr. On Video Of WI Students Protesting: "Is That Something Out Of ... Red China?" On the March 19 edition of Fox & Friends Saturday, Johnson responded to a video of chanting student protesters at the Wisconsin statehouse by saying, "Is that something out of, I don't know, red China or something?" [Fox News, Fox & Friends Saturday, 3/19/11, via Media Matters]
With Zero Evidence, Kilmeade Called Chanting WI Union Protesters "Violent"; On-Screen Text Called Them An "Angry Union Mob." On the March 3 edition of Fox & Friends, while talking about the protests in Wisconsin defending collective bargaining rights, Kilmeade claimed that a Republican lawmaker tried to find his way into the statehouse while there was "an angry mob on the outside" that got "violent." On-screen text read, "GOP lawmaker chased down by angry union mob," and, "Violent protesters corner state Republican." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/3/11, via Media Matters]
Michelle Malkin Called Richard Trumka "Thug In Chief At The AFL-CIO"; Accuses Him Of A "Bloody Legacy." On the February 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin said that " 'get[ting] a little bloody' is the union way" and then referred to AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka as "the thug in chief at the AFL-CIO." She later accused Trumka of having a "bloody legacy." [Fox News, Hannity, 2/23/11, via Media Matters]
Johnson: "We Understand The Value Of Unions," But They're "Begin[ning] To Destroy A Country." During a June 20 discussion on Hannity of Boeing's conflict with the National Labor Relations Board, Johnson said: "We understand the value of unions. They've done some great things over time. But when they begin to destroy a country ... We're staggered by the numbers. We can't afford what they're asking for." [Fox News, Hannity, 6/20/11, via Media Matters]
For more, see:
Fox Business' Kneale: "My Short Editorial: Unions Bad, Business Good"
Bolling Reflexively Smears Union Workers As "Union Thugs"
Beck Smears Students Protesting In Wisconsin As Lenin's "Useful Idiots"
Fox's Gary B. Smith: Public Sector "Collective Bargaining Needs To Be Abolished"
Fox's All-Out Assault On The Occupy Wall Street Movement
In the fall of 2011, as the Occupy Wall Street movement -- along with its message of fighting income equality -- began to spread across the country, Fox responded by vigorously attacking and demonizing the Occupy movement and protesters. Fox portrayed protesters as violent "Communist[s]" and "Nazi[s]" and repeatedly mocked them as "dirty" and "un-American." Fox's Liz Trotta even said that the Occupy Wall Street website included the "ravings of what sound like the Unabomber."
Bolling Wore A Tinfoil Hat While Mocking Occupy Wall Street Protesters. During the October 14 broadcast of Fox News' The Five, Bolling donned a tin foil hat and held a misspelled sign reading, "Ocupy The Five," to mock Occupy Wall Street protesters. Co-host Andrea Tantaros added that the Occupy Wall Street protesters needed signs like Bolling's because "they haven't brushed their teeth in weeks. How else do they communicate?" [Fox News, The Five, 10/14/11, via Media Matters]
Kilmeade Asked If "The Biggest Nightmare For A Parent" Is Spotting Your Kid At An 'Occupy' Protest. During the November 10 broadcast of Fox & Friends, Kilmeade claimed that "the biggest nightmare for a parent" would be to see his or her child at an Occupy protest. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/10/11, via Media Matters]
Doocy Promoted Anti-Occupy Wall Street Blog That Told Occupiers To "Suck It Up, You Whiners." During the October 11 broadcast of Fox & Friends, Doocy discussed CNN contributor and Red State editor Erick Erickson's countermovement to Occupy Wall Street, "We are the 53 percent." Doocy highlighted the countermovement's website directing Occupy Wall Street protesters to "suck it up, you whiners." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 10/11/11, via Media Matters]
Bolling: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Are "Communist, Nazi ... Pot Smoking, Sex-Addicted Morons." During the October 19 broadcast of The Five, Bolling called Occupy protesters "communist, Nazi ... pot smoking, sex-addicted morons." [Fox News, The Five, 10/19/11, via Media Matters]
Malkin: Occupy Movement Protesters "Are The Spawn Of The Worst Excesses Of The Ideological Left." During the November 16 broadcast of Hannity, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin claimed the Occupy Wall Street protesters "are the spawn of the worst excesses of the ideological left." [Fox News Channel, Hannity, 11/16/11, via Media Matters]
Fox & Friends Applauded NYPD's Eviction Of OWS Protesters: "Good Riddance." During the November 15 broadcast of Fox & Friends, text reading "Good Riddance" was aired during a tease about New York City police evicting Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zuccotti Park. [Fox News Channel, Fox & Friends, 11/15/11 via Media Matters]
Varney: It's "Un-American" For People To "Want Their Children To Grow Up And Demonstrate On Wall Street" During the October 28 broadcast of America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer read the results of a Fox poll asking, "What would you want your own child to be?" The options were "Wall Street executive," "Occupy Wall St. protester," or "neither." Twenty-six percent of respondents claimed that from the given options they would like their children to grow up and be Occupy protesters. Varney said the fact that "one quarter" of respondents had answered this way was "un-American." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 10/28/11, via Media Matters]
For more, see:
Fox's Trotta On Occupy Wall Street Website: "Ravings Of What Sounds Like The Unabomber"
Fox Relentlessly Accused Obama Of Inciting Class Warfare
Fox figures repeatedly reacted to any of President Obama's jobs and deficit reduction plans that included proposals to raises taxes on the wealthy by claiming Obama was inciting class warfare. During 2011, Fox relentlessly accused Obama of "soak[ing] the rich" and attempting to "divide and conquer" the country by inciting "class warfare."
Doocy: "The President Is Talking About Raising Taxes, And, You Know, Effectively Class Warfare." On the September 19 broadcast of Fox & Friends, Doocy claimed that Obama's deficit reduction plan was "effectively class warfare." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/19/11, via Media Matters]
Sean Hannity: Obama "Could Not Help But Resort To Using The Same Kind Of Class Warfare" In His Speech On Jobs Bill. During the September 12 broadcast of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity said of Obama's speech about his jobs plan: "And, as usual, the president could not help but resort to using the same kind of class warfare and false choices that we've gotten used to over the past two-and-a-half years." [Fox News, Hannity, 9/12/11, via Media Matters]
Bolling: "Class Warfare" Is "Emanating Out Of The White House." During the August 22 edition of The Five, co-host Eric Bolling said to fellow panelist Dana Perino: "All right, Dana, what about the class warfare that seems to be, I don't know, emanating out of the White House? Is it only the White House, or is it the right, too?" [Fox News, The Five, 8/22/11]
Doocy Called Obama's Deficit Reduction Tour The "Soak The Rich Tour." On the April 18 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy reacted to reports that Obama would travel to Nevada and California to promote his deficit reduction plan by saying, "Rather than the deficit reduction tour, call it the 'Soak the Rich Tour.' " [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/18/11]
Johnson: Obama's "Clear Strategy" Is "Divide And Conquer" With "Class Warfare." On the September 20 edition of Fox & Friends, Peter Johnson Jr. said that Obama's deficit-reduction plan, which included increasing taxes on the wealthy, was evidence of Obama's "clear strategy" to "divide and conquer" and "anger the middle ... of America" with "class warfare." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/20/11, via Media Matters]
Molly Line Declared Obama "Wants To Use The Rich To Fix His Spending Problem." On the July 18 edition of Fox & Friends, guest host Molly Line claimed that Obama "wants to use the rich to fix his spending problem." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 7/18/11, via Media Matters]
For more, see:
Trump: "Class Warfare" Is "Probably The Only Way [Obama] Thinks He Can Get Elected"
Sarah Palin: Obama Is Using Occupy Movement To "Perpetuate" Class Warfare
Broken Record: Doocy Again Complains Taxing The Wealthy Is "Class Warfare"
Fox's Camerota On Obama Tax Plan: "Is The White House Inciting Class Warfare?"
Broken Record: Doocy Calls Obama's Jobs Bill "Class Warfare ... One Of Those Soak The Rich Things"
The only Americans saying patriotism is paying less taxes are weekend warrior militia guys, libertarian utopianists, and people who watch a lot of Fox news.
$200,000 a year was considered the top end of the upper middle class about twenty years ago, but with wages stagnating, industrial and technology jobs being off-shored, and an ever increasing pool of cheap immigrant labor, I think most Americans would now readily consider $200,000 a year to be rich. Only highly paid TV pundits seem to think otherwise.
The saddest part of all this is that the democrats can't ever seem to capitalize when republicans use this kind of disconnected and absurd rhetoric.
$200,000/year was never remotely "middle class" in any year, nor has any figure followed by that many zeros ever been. Median household income, in 1990, was just a hair over $30,000; today, MHI is about $49,500. You're correct about the stagnation; when those same figures are expressed in constant dollars, MHI has actually dropped in that period. But $200,000/year always put one in the top 5-6% of income earners.
That might be true but completely irrelevant. Most people I know commute to their workplace and live in an area that they can afford. If the rates are higher in one area and cheaper in another, you go to the area you can afford. If you can't afford Manhattan but you work there, making $100k/year: commute.
I live outside Seattle because I can't afford the rates for downtown Seattle. If I worked in downtown Seattle, I'd just commute to work.
I can't believe other people believe that $100k/year (or more) is not a lot of money....
Who are these people? </seinfeld>
Here's a tip, Hi... if you want to pretend you're making a lot of money on the internets, keep it vague. As soon as you write something as dopey as you're paying 40% on 100k, you just make it obvious you've probably never made six figures in any two years.
If I'm not thinking about that right, I apologize, but it sure comes across as strange.
That was the number used in the post I was replying to.
Pretty cute that he's complaining to us, the people paying his six figures of government entitlements, about having to pitch in too much.
And then the balls to calculate his tax burden on only his government check, not his imaginary extra income.
If any of it was true, I probably would be pizzed off instead of laughing.
I would love to know how much disposable and discretionary income he has every year.
You really need to talk to some adults before getting into a story like this.
Or get an new accountant.
You socialist. Don't your kind think working for the government is bad. Are you just another example of how are government can't get anything right? Or are you the only government employee who deserve their job ar is any good at it? Just wonder you socialist hypocrite freak? Not to mention you're a horrible liar. Your money made from investments and investment properties isn't taxed at anywhere near forty percent neither is your GS-12 pay. You are a liar. I work with several GS-12s (most retired military) who will tell you that they owe their entire livelihood to the US government, been in the employee of their government for all of their adult lives just like you highandmighty. And they seem to know that paying their taxes simply helps our government employee themselves to do a job they all feel privileged to have a proud to do well. How about you?
I never said any of that. Of course my actually income tax rate isn’t 40%. You forgetting properly sales and local taxes.
I made $8 billion dollars last year and paid 123% in taxes.
/sarcasm
So wait GS-12? A federal employee? Why is it they're always the ones complaining about socialism and government run amok?
I always figure they're kids who don't think it's possible that anybody else here could possibly have made 100k, or known somebody who makes that or more..
I make just less than 80k and my effective tax load for Fed, State, & local taxes is approximately 25% of my AGI. Lowfile just needs a new accountant.
Yes and we make over double that have6 houses and 800 acres of land, Boats, Cars, Cattle we pay taxes on. You don’t think that I could possibly have to bay 15% more than you?
Nope your not rich at all.
If everything you say is true.
That's the point. They work damned hard and they're treated like garbage by those that are the beneficiaries of all their hard work.
Yes that is what mindless, ignorant soulless morons were TOLD to think. GOD but you are a disgusting piece of garbage
and:
This kind of simplistic rhetoric makes my blood boil. The most common way people become rich in this country is to inherit wealth. What good life choices did these people make to become wealthy? I wasn't aware we had a choice of what sperm and egg we come from. I really wanted to be Bill Gates' kid, but that didn't happen for me.
Even if this simple minded drivel did have any merit, why do the people spouting it always seem to be in favor of policy that makes it even harder for those born outside of privilege to succeed?
These people are all in favor of forcing women to carry the baby to term, then refuse to help the unwed mother. The so-called conservatives who spout this drivel want to cut scholarships, Pell grants, and do away with the GI Bill. They want to eliminate unemployment insurance, limit tort reform, and destroy unions.
highlighter, please go spout your tired, simple minded, absurd talking points on a forum where people aren't blessed with common sense and simple human decency. You'll receive nothing but ridicule here, you hypocrite.
Or for not killing babies
LOL what horse crap talking points. Cut scholarships hardly most are private. Never seen anyone suggest getting rid of the GI Bill. They may be some nut ball out there but not a main stream view. Limit tort reform on punitive damages yes. Destroy unions give me a break.
Or for not killing babies
LOL what horse crap talking points. Cut scholarships hardly most are private. Never seen anyone suggest getting rid of the GI Bill. They may be some nut ball out there but not a main stream view. Limit tort reform on punitive damages yes. Destroy unions give me a break.
Or for not killing babies
LOL what horse crap talking points. Cut scholarships hardly most are private. Never seen anyone suggest getting rid of the GI Bill. They may be some nut ball out there but not a main stream view. Limit tort reform on punitive damages yes. Destroy unions give me a break.
Or for not killing babies
LOL what horse crap talking points. Cut scholarships hardly most are private. Never seen anyone suggest getting rid of the GI Bill. They may be some nut ball out there but not a main stream view. Limit tort reform on punitive damages yes. Destroy unions give me a break.
One of the things that most disgust me about soulless, brainwashed Randinista MORONS like HiLiar is the contempt they have for working people who are by and large better human beings by FAR than they will ever be
You are stupid, dishonest, pathetic, brainwashed and ignorant belief. That you think you are better than dishwashers is depressing. You disgust all decent human beings and arent fit to lick the boots of actual human beings who wash dishes. With the skillset you show here I wouldnt let you wash my car. I pity you and anyone who ever has to spend ten seconds in your putrid presence. If you earn what you deserve you will earn a life of misery and a constant reminder of what a subhuman moron you are as everyone you meet treats you with the total lack of respect you so richly deserve
That is pure BS(how many CEO's bankrupted companies and retired with golden parachutes) and there is no reason why a dishwasher or janitor should not be paid a living wage.
Not always.
There are a bunch of overpaid CEO's who don't earn what they are paid.
Personally, the local garbage man tends to be underpaid and, speaking from experience, a lot of the floor employees I work with are not compensated at a rate comparable to their worth or the conditions they work in.
Of course, we could go on and on about this, since what someone is worth is always up for debate.
Oh god please help me, please help me from calling lowlights an effin' moron.....
Ask yourself a very simple set of questions Highlights, is every great voice rich and famous? Or, are all rich and famous voices great? Better yet, are all hard working individual rich and successful? Or, are all rich and successful people very hard working?.........You'll find not one of those can be answered with a simple yes, can it? Please stop acting stupid, and if your not acting, simply stop posting here.
He loves to brag about how much money he makes.
He was bragging to me that he made 150K a year, then a few minutes later was bragging how he made a thousand dollars a day at his job.
Republican braggarts are often really bad at math. Either that or they think those they're bragging to are really bad at math.
I thought you said you worked for the US government and were retire from an earlier job from the same US government. Which is it hard working or lazy a$$ government fraud waste and abuser. You are on the side of "our gub-ment" can't get anything right, aren't you?
Umm nope didnt say that.
So you aren't yet retired from the Guard yet, and your a GS-12 in another capacity. Working for the government in two separate capacities and collecting my tax payer dollars for both capacities like any good socialist would. Or do I still have your lie confused.
He ( or his character) doesn't seem to be picking up on this. He's being supported by the tax dollars of all of us working in the private sector, with the added good fortune of making a good salary in a very low-ball part of the country.
He supposedly has made enough disposable income to acquire several rental and income properties over the years, and is planning on retiring early.
But he feels like he's being taxed to death, because he might not be able to quit working quite as early ( at our expense) as he wants to.
He's afraid he might make a little bit of money ( from us) that will fall into a higher tax bracket this year, and he doesn't think that's fair.
I wonder if he's considered cutting government expenses by giving up his pension, or taking a pay cut. Maybe that would lower his taxes.
Here's me, feeling sorry for him.... not.
No, I don't think you do. Real estate taxes can be deducted off your Federal taxes and at $160k you would be in the 28% tax bracket, 3% higher than mine. I know that the vast sum of money you pay in taxes makes it hard to impossible for you to survive day to day but; somehow I think you will get by.
800 acres of land and so on...wonder how much all that is actually worth.
And you're complaining about the $20k you allegedly pay in property taxes?
No the land is worth 1.5ish
You act like I have no Debt all that stuff isnt free and clear.
I wonder if he thinks any of this is his responsibility, or if he just thinks the government should solve all of his problems.
Somebody up above did suggest that a person making 100 grand could be taxed a little more, but I'm sure they were talking about a more responsible person, making 100k and living a reasonable 100k lifestyle.
I suppose 100k isn't that much money... if you're dumb enough to take on 90k in mortgages.
If you bought that property knowing the tax rates, then you have nothing to complain about. If you bought them not knowing the tax rates, then you have nothing to complain about. If you bought them not realizing that taxes could be raised, then you have nothing to complain about.
You should adhere to the beliefs you hold about others and realize that if you're paying more in taxes than you'd like, it's because of the poor decisions you've made and you deserve it.
Sorry, sort of hard to tell with all of the replies, but if that was directed at me;
WTF are you talking about ?
Do you understand that just about everybody here is doing that same thing, just being responsible, and not complaining that they're in over their head ?
Again, where did you get the loony idea that I want to punish you or tax you to death ? You seem to be living in some sort of Fox-induced nightmare.
You should be punished for your lack of humanity, integrity and common decency. Not on what your DREAMS of what you will earn are. Taxes are at their lowest level in decades. You are a liar and pathetic trollscum
You blood sucking, government dependent, socialist leach. Oh wait, gubment jobs are OK if they're yours, huh d!ck?
Actually what you describe would make you a millionaire.
6 houses @ $50k/house = $300k
800 acres of land @ $2k/acre = $1600k
Income of $160k per year =total worth of $2.06 million.
I lowballed the land price and the homw prices, unless you are a slum lord so you would actually be a multi-millionaire.
(even if it is pretend)
2 @ 250
1 @ 110
3 at 50
Land is about right a lot of it is wooded not worth near as much.
Bank loans = 750k Lets not forget thoes.
2 homes generating $3k per month in rent
1 home generating $1.5k per month in rent
3 homes generating $.6k per month in rent
That means you have $12k in monthly income to cover your loans and expenses on the homes.
Sucks to be you.
And you cant rent homes for near that much where I live. I get 500 for the 3 and 8 for the 1.
Where the heck do you live, the back hills of West Virginia?
Even in the boonies of SC, where I used to live, our heavily forested, rolling hills, farm land was worth $2k to $5k per acre in the mid 80's. Where I currently live in southern Illinois crappy farm land is selling for $10k and up. (sheesh)
Good: $4,800-$6,500; down 10 percent to up 15 percent
Average: $4,000-$6,000; flat to up 13 percent
Recreational: $2,500-$4,000; down 10 percent to up 5 percent.
I did a quick search of farmland for sale in my area, low price $6k per acre high price $7.5k per acre. I don't know what is driving prices locally, since the land would be average at best, but it is still too expensive for my tastes. (just saying)
Not asking you to tie that down any closer but; that sure covers a lot of territory.
http://extension.missouri.edu/p/G404
Her is some wooded areas goign for 1500 or so. Link
Nice area, even though it is rural.
As my kids used to say: "somewhere past BFE"
Rolling hills and forested watershed.
Reminds me of upstate SC.
Not sure what the hell you are talking about here. I just think I’m taxed enough.
Wow lot of assumptions there. I sure my friends a family will and I’m sure my daughter will do just fine with my millions.
It's argueable that it's both. I'm motivated to provide for my children and to prevent my being a burden to them when I am gone. In the meantime, I do what I can to help others who haven't had my advantages. And I don't think that people are poor because they're lazy or stupid...but you do.
You complain about your taxes, which I think you misstated, given the rental and farm incomes. If you don't want to pay such high taxes, either get a better accountant or get rid of some of the assets. Buying all those things and going into such debt that you resent your taxes is a bad choice. You think you're going to get rich, but maybe you've overreached and it will cost you everything. Making money isn't cheap, paying taxes on higher income should be a given, a cost of doing business.
"Wow lot of assumptions there. I sure my friends a(nd) family will and I'm sure my daughter will do just fine with my millions."
Really? You're sure about that? If you're so busy chasing the almighty buck, you're probably ignoring your friends and family. And the answer to how much can you take with you, the answer has ALWAYS been: Not a single penny. Funny, when I die, I want my daughters to miss me. And I prefer to give them their security now, while I'm here than to leave money behind. But you may be right, maybe your daughter will like the money more than your company, you raised her.
What a load of crap.
I DARE you to come up with a charity navigator link that ha their current rating less than 4 stars.
You do realize that the 2010 downgrade probably used their numbers for 2008 right? ---hiighliter
Lol. This is hilarious. So your allegation is that articles written in 2010 that caused a 2010 downgrade were taken from 2008 and not from the 2009 findings? Incredible for it's nonsense. No wonder you think you pay 40% in taxes. The articles and downgrade came from 2009 stats and it is provided in the links. The articles are about 2009 and the downgrade from the 2009 findings. If they had been upgraded by Charity Navigator they would've have reported it. The latest finding gave them a 2.
Provide a link or shut up!
Your text to link here...
I make a little over 100k a year and all together am probably just over 20% but I have someone else do my taxes. HiLiar is full of it. I dont believe for one second he pays more than 40% in taxes
I flat dont believe you. You have proven yourself to be a pathalogical liar. My income is one source and I am figuring all the taxes but I dont do my own taxes. I am also figuring what I get back OFF of what I paid in income taxes. You dont pay 40%. Flat out you dont. You only pay the highest rate on what you make ABOVE the highest level of income. Your RENTERS are paying your rental property taxes. You are lying. It is that simple. Pretty much everyone here understands that.
( I know it's all imaginary, just thought I'd try to flesh out your fantasy a little)
No, it doesnt. THEY are paying it so it cannot possibly come off of YOUR bottom line. You are figuring it as YOUR income when it is THEM paying YOUR taxes.
You're pretending your property tax amounts are having an effect that they really aren't. Unless you're a financial idiot. So far, you don't look to be any better with finances than you are with the English language.
There's a refutation of your claim. Do you have any substantial support for it? If not, may we assume you pulled it from your posterior? "My accountant says" doesn't count for much.
No it didn’t it said the average. Some states don’t have property taxes or state income taxes, and your average person making 100k doesn’t own a million + in real-estate nor counting their own house.
When I owned my plumbing business, I wrote off nearly 60% of my gross receipts, between depreciation, inventory, direct expenses, home office, Either you have never owned and operated a small business, or you've got the worst tax guy ever.
This proves you know nothing. You cannot deduct maintenance only improvements. Things like plumbing, roof, heating and air repair, painting ect. are not deductable. Adding on would be deductable.
I've provided data showing you're wrong. You keep making vague assertions to me and everyone else but you can't back it up with data. I wonder why that is.
Yes I’m sure the AVG property taxes are included. I pay nowhere near the AVG in property taxes due tho the nature of my income. And yes I do get to deduct it but it doesn’t come close to makeing up the difference.
How much do you thing the average person making between 150-250k pays in property taxes. I guarantee its nowhere near 20k
Yes I’m sure the AVG property taxes are included. I pay nowhere near the AVG in property taxes due tho the nature of my income. And yes I do get to deduct it but it doesn’t come close to makeing up the difference.
How much do you thing the average person making between 150-250k pays in property taxes. I guarantee its nowhere near 20k
No you are NOT taxed enough. You should be taxed on your stupidity and lack of basic humanity since that puts a burden on all decent human beings trying to have a society
And not claiming it's indicative of anything, but you meant to type "definitely".
Even if that were true and we would net 500 billion more with no negative impact on the economy we would still be in the hole a TRILLION dollars a year. You do know that Bush lowered everyone taxes right? Do they all need to go back to Clinton levels, or just the rich? The latest drop to 23.6% happened became of the payroll tax cut. Do you wish to do away with it as well?
Even if that were true and we would net 500 billion more with no negative impact on the economy we would still be in the hole a TRILLION dollars a year. You do know that Bush lowered everyone taxes right? Do they all need to go back to Clinton levels, or just the rich? The latest drop to 23.6% happened became of the payroll tax cut. Do you wish to do away with it as well?
But the claim was that if we lowered the taxes on the wealthy, then the wealthy would "create jobs". This obviously did not happen.
Yes, the tax cut was across the board. At the moment, increasing taxes on the poor- and middle-class would be detrimental to the recovering economy. Raising taxes on the wealthy would not be. Eliminate the Bush era tax cuts for anyone making over $250k will be a good start to making the deficit lower. Increased help to the poor- and middle-class will grow the economy and jobs.
It's economics.
No they dont. You are pitiful
Please, get yourself a sixth-grade vocabulary before you try to regale us with grown-up fables.
I think HiLiar is like Joe, wishes he were a plumber and he thinks he will be taxed on what he DREAMS he will make someday
people who make in the 100k to 400k pay A LOT of taxes (usually) because they can't hide as much. people who make millions (buffet) can live quite nicely on there dividends at a lower rate or about a hundred different ways to shelter. apples and oranges.
No, it doesnt. You only pay 28% on the portion of your income that meets then exceeds that threshold. So that would be on less than half of your income. On the portion LESS than that you pay a LOWER PERCENTAGE.
Your ignorance of taxation systems, it seems, is only exceeded by your near total ignorance of macro economics. If you must comment, just do it and then learn from the replies and use them as a basis to further your education
Sure it was.
I'm not saying I think $200,000 is middle class personally. My personal beliefs are that "rich" begins somewhere around $75,000 a year. I'm just saying that one might consider that as the absolute top end of a what used to be a much stronger middle class in this country before corporations drove out the vast majority of small retail and service businesses and republicans waged war on union wages.
I guess I could have phrased it better.
you have got to be kidding.
because its crazy. nurses, fireman, cops and teachers are in that catagory. hardly call them rich. its only slightly higher than the median and not even upper middle.
Riverdog has an issue with coolslaw's definition of "rich", which isn't unreasonable on his part.
It's all relative.
Seattle is the same way but if you go outside of Seattle to one of the neighboring suburbs, the price is cut in half or more. You can get a 1 bedroom apartment for $600/month, for example. Then just commute to work.
I'm in Orange County, south of L.A., which is sprawling, with no actual city, just various downtown areas. Housing prices generally vary as you move inland, but rentals don't have that sharp a curve.
For instance, if you get within a mile or two of the beach in my city, a small studio apartment rents for about $1,000, a 1 bdrm maybe 12-1400 ( haven't checked rental rates lately).
You need to go 10 or 20 miles inland to see those drop by maybe 20%.
There's no real public transportation here, and consistently bad traffic, with rush hour getting longer all the time.
If you want to commute, you need to figure in an eight hour day turning into a ten or twelve hour day, wear and tear on your vehicle, fuel...essentially giving yourself a pay cut.
It's a little different in L.A., where one can live pretty cheaply near downtown, depending on how horrible a neighborhood one is willing to live in.
I was thinking of somebody earning much less as far as the renting. You're right, somebody making 75k could live fine paying that rent, although they might be thinking of buying a home.
My point was that a difference in rent of a couple hundred dollars a month ( two or three grand a year) might not make up for fuel and maintenance costs, or the longer days.
No it isnt slightly higher than median. That would be about 50 grand so it would be about 50% ABOVE median
Indeed there is class warfare in this country, but it is being waged by the ultra rich, not the poor.
Which is it? Do they horde their money or do they buy things?
Starving kids? Foods stamps, WIC, Welfare, school lunch programs, and Food Banks all prevent kids from starving.
Do you really think that’s the norm? According to recent U.S. Census data, only 16.5 percent of minimum wage recipients are raising a family on the minimum wage. The remaining 83.5 percent are teenagers living with working parents, adults living alone, or dual-earner married couples.
The average annual family income of those earning the minimum wage in 2009 was over $48,000.2
Really? I guess it is all how you look at it right? Drug testing recipients of foodstamps and unemployment insurance. Raising the eligibility standards and cutting the funding for those programs along with calling for those programs to be run by churches and social programs is not trying to get rid of them is it? Just like one of you cons tried to explain we can do away with hunger by just redefining it. It's all how you look at it I guess. lol.
April 5, 2010, - 2:56 pm
Responding to Schlussel Expose, Charity Navigator Downgrades Hannity Charity: Freedom Alliance Rating Now Only 2 Stars (“Needs Improvement”)
By Debbie Schlussel
Your text to link here...
Freedom Alliance's Charity Rating Falls After CREW Complaint
In the days since Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed complaints regarding Sean Hannity's charity work, Charity Navigator downgraded its rating of Freedom Alliance from four stars to two stars.
[url=http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/freedom-alliances-charity-rating-falls-after-crew-complaint]Your text to link here...[/url
]Major Charity Watchdog Group Downgrades Sean Hannity's Charity - 4 Star Rating Cut In Half
[url=http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/major-charity-watchdog-group-downgrad]Your text to link here...[/ur
Lets see do families receiving unemployment insurance count anywhere in your analysis? Yet with all your stats you still fail to explain how poverty is increasing and the income gap growing wider or why families are working harder for less and less wages. Reminds me of George Bush :
"...The issue facing America today is many of our middle-class families work three jobs: his, hers, and the joint responsibility of raising children..."
Nope these families arent't struggeling.
April 5, 2010, - 2:56 pm
Responding to Schlussel Expose, Charity Navigator Downgrades Hannity Charity: Freedom Alliance Rating Now Only 2 Stars (“Needs Improvementâ€)
By Debbie Schlussel
Your text to link here...
Freedom Alliance's Charity Rating Falls After CREW Complaint
In the days since Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed complaints regarding Sean Hannity's charity work, Charity Navigator downgraded its rating of Freedom Alliance from four stars to two stars.
[url=http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/freedom-alliances-charity-rating-falls-after-crew-complaint]Your text to link here...[/url
]Major Charity Watchdog Group Downgrades Sean Hannity's Charity - 4 Star Rating Cut In Half
[url=http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/major-charity-watchdog-group-downgrad]Your text to link here...[/ur
They were downgraded from 4 to 2. If they have been upograded by Charity Navigator show it.
Freedom Alliance's Charity Rating Falls After CREW Complaint
In the days since Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed complaints regarding Sean Hannity's charity work, Charity Navigator downgraded its rating of Freedom Alliance from four stars to two stars.
(Now in the article saying they were downgraded the article links to your page from Charity Navigator showing thev 4 stars rating but after CREWS complaint was lowered to 2 stars.)
Here is a whole page reporting the same. They were downgraded from 2009 stats.
Your text to link here...
I get the feeling right wing internet play-actors watch a lot of cartoons. They're all successful businessmen who spell at an elementary school level, and don't seem to have the flimsiest understanding of our tax system.
Kids are going hungry in the US.
And, as far as the Employment Policies Institute goes.
Just as a note.
In order to gross $48,000 a year on minimum wage, two people would have to work 3,000 hours in the year, at $8/hour to gross that much. That basically works out to 10 hours a day, 6 days a week for the year.
Even at $10/hour that works out to 2400 hours a piece for two people for the year.
Except that isn't what you quote and that isn't what is stated in the article you link to. (You really need to broaden your reading base)
The statement:
"The average annual family income of those earning the minimum wage in 2009 was over $48,000."
Implies that everyone in the family makes minimum wage.
It doesn't state "The average annual family income of families where one member earns minimum wage and the other earns significantly more".
Even the article that it is referenced to (footnote 2) does not support the $48,000 claim. In fact it doesn't reference it at all.
You really need to find a more unbiased source for your data.
You are a LIAR somewhere around 25% of minimum wage workers are teens. You have been corrected on this before. You dont CARE what is true you just like to keep pushing the lies you like to tell. More than 80% of those making minimum wage are not teens. Why do you lie so much?
At or below prevailing Federal Minimum Wage (in thousands)
Total Workers: 2,226
16-19: 545
545 / 2226 = 24.48%
Thanks Daniel
Sadly, this seems to be very one-sided and all I get from them (if I get anything at all) are right-wing blogs that just repeat what they said. This is, to me, tantamount to pulling up Moon-Landing Hoax websites to back up a claim that the Moon Landing was a hoax. That isn't how citing works. But, sadly, that's all I ever seem to get.
I hear ya my friend. I admire your patience. I got tired of this a few years ago. I would PROVE beyond any doubt that Bush told lies about Iraq. With quotations and citations and everything. They would slink away then come back in a couple of days make the same claims then make me do the homework all over again. I stashed a few links but that was with my old computer. Now when they just keep repeating the lies I dont bother. You are right though. I think a lot of people read and dont post. It is good to prove the point everytime. I just no longer have the patience
It bears all the hallmarks of a young adolescent trying out his/her "new" intellect. As all we adults have learned, when you're a young adolescent you know everything. The wisdom that comes with years of experience and willingness to learn from mistakes and the experience of those that have gone before, leads us to challenge, especially, the ideas that appeal to our preconceived notions.
Some people never grow to that stage.
I'd argue that that is 16.5% too much. I honestly don't see how even people without dependants get by on that unless they share expenses with someone else.
The rich are "the rich" because of us and the top 1% should be on their knees thanking us for helping them become so super-wealthy and should help us. In turn, we'll do what we always do: spend our money and make them even more rich.
Even if the top marginal tax rate was 50%, no one would ever pay 50%. It's a mathematical impossibility. Because the first block of money is taxed at a lower rate, then the next block of money is taxed at a higher rate, and then the next block of money taxed at a higher rate until you get to the maximum which is the top marginal tax rate. But if you consider how much you're taxed in total, that number will be below 50%. The effective total federal tax rate for the top 1% in 2007 was 29.5% even though the top marginal tax rate was 35%.
They also all belong to unions... as do everyone who works for Fox News.
Except, of course, the Kochs don't get the same public scrutiny as the Kardashians...
What is YOUR point, other than the rich should be given even BIGGER pieces of the pie?
who is this guy "demand" where does he/she live? does he use his own money? does he take risk?
people create jobs, some by goverment but most by the private sector. some rich people create jobs, some are middle class.
I can build a better mouse trap, or a better iPhone but; if no one buys it I don't create any jobs.
And if you're referring to jobs that are created through games, such as vendors, then they would still exist regardless of how much the athletes are taxed.
The question is, and always has been, "are they grotesquely overpaid relative to the actual WORTH of their contribution to the enterprise?"
And the same goes for every CEO.(And considering how MUCH more overpaid CEOs are- and how much easier they are to replace- that question is evn MORE relevant).
That seems like an awfully strange definition, since it would apply to a great number of employees...which is exactly what actors and athletes are.
But that's because I see a job as a mutually agreed to contract. Whether between employer and employee, or business owner/customer, it's a contract, something that's hopefully beneficial to all parties involved.
There is no job, only a job opportunity, an abstract concept, until somebody agrees to do the work.
The propagandists at Fox and on am radio have been working very hard to portray a job as a gift that a rich person "gives" to somebody who isn't rich.
YOU are a parasite. Replacing you or just ridding society of you would be a boon to the entire human race. If you dont want to pay your share feel free to get the hel out of our good country. We dont NEED parasitic scum like you
Sports performance is relative. If the average football score dropped, then those above that score would still be considered good performances.
And the point is that maintaining jobs is something that's done by plenty of people. Athletes and actors are employees, even if they're rich and famous.
There are not millions of people that can play sports at the elite level. ---hl
BS!
You continuously dodge the point that they're employees. They don't create jobs because they play their games any more than the guy who changes your oil "creates" your car.
It's remarkable how many seemingly unrelated issues boil down to "bitches are stupid" for Republicans.
The WNBA competes with the NBA, with a completely different style of play. That is nothing like replacing players in a league.
LOL you have got to be kidding me. Not a chance, the men are too much taller and faster the women would have a hard time getting shot off and keeping up.
Also crazy men tennis serve speed exceed on average 10-30 MPH faster the record for a men’s serve is 198 MPH while a woman’s is only 125
Charlie Sheen was easily replaced even on a show where he was the main character.
These people are employees. Yes, what they bring to the table sometimes nets them a lot of money, but that doesn't mean that they're indispensable and that the management can't find someone else to fill that role should you screw up too much.
On the subject of crew, roadie jokes not withstanding, they are the backbone of the performing arts (including professional sports which often owe more to "showbiz" that athleticism), I learnt very early on to make friends with the lighting and sound crew well before performance. It helped to make the show go well and, I might add, lessened the chances of them inflicting the sort of revenge that I had seen exacted on those arrogant types who regarded these highly skilled techs as mere minions.
The employment of actors and athletes plus the rest of the employees engaged in putting together The Event is based on the demand that is perceived to exist amongst the general public by producers and prospective investors.
The real job creators are the ordinary punters who demand certain goods and services. Demand is distinguished from "wishlist" in that demands are satisfiable as well as being elastic in that they will expand with the capacity to satisfy them - up to a point. That point is where the imagination fails the rich and the only thing that they can think of to do with their wealth is to generate more wealth through unnecessary "trading" whereby a virtual round-robin transactions are created for the specific purpose of enabling these people to take a percentage of the cost of the transactions as a "service" fee.
The point that is lost in all this is that the money used for these transactions didn't come out of thin air - it came, largely, from the institutional funds which are made up from the small investments of wage and salary earners and their institutions - including local government, superannuation funds and other mutuals.
And that's why those of us who are aware of that injustice demand that the rich pay their fair share, as they haven't been. Had they been paying their fair share, their ever-increasing wealth over the past 40 years would be matched by similar gains by the poor and the middle class.
They haven't been matched, though. The bottom tiers have shown virtually stagnant wages since 1980. The wealth of the richest Americans has exploded. They've received all the value from the increases in productivity due to scientific advances in our country. That tide used to raise all boats. Increases in productivity since the start of the Industrial Revolution are what created the vast middle class!
So, when they talk about "class warfare", they're simply trying to obfuscate about the class warfare that had already been going on for decades, being waged against anyone but the rich.
This is a quote from the article above. Which you obviously haven't read.
Herman Cain is the most notable. His 9-9-9 plan would have lowered after-tax incomes for the poor, while giving those who gross over $1 million a year an average tax cut of over $400,000.
Sen. Marco Rubio: "we don't have enough people paying taxes in this country."
Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman: "Marco Rubio was right when he said we don’t have enough people paying taxes in this country,"
Texas Gov. Rick Perry: "we're dismayed at the injustice that nearly half of all Americans don't even pay any income tax."
Rep. Michelle Bachmann: "Part of the problem is today, only 53 percent pay any federal income tax at all; 47 percent pay nothing. We need to broaden the base so that everybody pays something, even if it's a dollar. Everyone should pay something, because we all benefit."
Maybe if "they" actually made more than a barely living wage they could afford to pay more taxes.
Funny how you ask a question in one sentence then give the primary example in the next.
But to answer your second question, they pay more in taxes at the state level.
They also sacrifice plenty simply by being poor. It's not as glamorous as Fox would have you believe.
Whatever we democratically DECIDE what is a fair share. You dont hear anything from the left. You are too brainwashed to take in any REAL information you hear only what Rush and his ilk tell you to think
Okay, Media Matters, you gotta help me out here. I've been bored the last week or so, you haven't been postintg enough new threads. There haven't even been any decent "stupid" trolls to talk trash about. It has forced me to go over there to that Beck cess pit. It's really bringing me down! I've paid a high price for trolling, it turns my stomach and makes me snotty. Please, please, come up with some new stuff! Stop me before I troll again!
I know exactly where your're coming from. I should be rehearshing for a New Years Eve gig!
Was it class warfare when the Republicans wanted to reduce the taxes on the rich after the Eisenhower presidency? Was it class warfare when those taxes were instituted to help pay for WW II? Was it class warfare when the congress in the 1930's set up regulations to prevent many of the problems that the country went through that caused this recession? You know--the regulations that the republicans loosened to help make the economy better. Or, was that class warfare against the middle class?
Let's be clear.
Wrong the republican leadership in the house wanted it for a full year not 2 months.
Well that is not how FOX reported it, oh wait thats CBS
That's what prompted Obama to (finally) get his message out effectively instead of caving in, leading to the Republican House getting some very well deserved criticism even by fellow Republicans. Boehner (who is literally the "Republican leadership in the House") refused to put the compromise bill (voted for by 39 Senate Republicans) up for a vote. He, too, was subsequently criticized even by his own party.
There's a reason Obama's approval is up and Republican approval is down, and it's not because Republicans were the ones fighting for a year-long extension.
Wrong the republican leadership in the house wanted it for a full year not 2 months.
Of course... Grover Norquist.
You are a PUNK. Still too stupid to know the name of the largest political party in America. Still too stupid to understand the English language and still so petty and brainwashed you misuse Democrat because you are a punk and because Rush told you to. You are among the most pitiful creatures alive
sorry but you are wrong on this one, obama and the dems in both houses wanted one year, the right none. after reids comprimise of 2 monthe the right suddenly wanted 1 year.
cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml
Even though we keep hearing how it's the 99% versus the 1%, a majority of Americans, in growing numbers, don't buy it. The percentage of people who believe we are divided into "haves" and "have nots" is decreasing according to a recent Gallup poll. The same poll shows that 50% think we need to grow the economy while only 29% think we should do something about closing the wealth gap. The poll also shows a large and growing majority feel big government is more of a threat to America than big business or big labor.
blog.heritage.org/2011/12/16/poll-americans-reject-class-warfare-talk-by-obama-occupy-wall-street/
We do need to grow the economy and we do it by helping those that drive the economy: The 99%.
Second paragraph; You're bragging about the dumbing down of America. Not surprising, considering your interpretation of this part of the survey-
You mean the part where 72% said it was important, and 28% said it wasn't important?
Here's something else you apparently didn't notice, in the "biggest threat" survey; Gallup split the vote between two right wing boogeymen, Big Government and Big Labor.
You've got to learn to keep your brain turned on when you look at these things, Panzy. Otherwise, you're going to end up as one of these typical survey respondents.
The effective individual income tax rate for the top 1% was 19% in 2007 and 19.3% in 2005. The effective federal tax rate for the top 1% was 29.5% in 2007 and 31.6% in 2005.
You are a LIAR. Your entire post was a bunch of ignorant lies, strawman stupidity and what Rush told you to think.
You are too STUPID to know what class warfare is, you are too STUPID to speak about what Americans think. You are too stupid to think.
This will go over your head since you are too stupid to understand anything but what Rush told you to think but how much of the WEALTH does the 1% control and how much is 18% a RAISE from the percentage the used to make? My GOD but you are stupid. Sure use the Heritage foundation, a Randinista business oriented thinktank for your biased BS. You are still as pathetic as you have always been
If you think it clever to use older numbers, from a time when the share of income of the top 1% had temporarily declined, be hereby disabused of the notion. In 2007--the most recent numbers a quick Google search returned--the top 1% of Americans earned 23.5% of the income. To put that in perspective, that's more than the bottom half of the U.S. population makes; the last time that top 1% ate up that much of the nation's income was 1929, and the greatest economic collapse in our history followed. The percentage of income swallowed up by that top 1% has been trending up, up, up, since the late 1970s.
Since so many people make the error, it should also be noted that annual income doesn't equal wealth. It's true that income concentration is a sign of an ailing economy, but wealth concentration--the real villain of the piece--is even worse. Wealth concentration, which was flat or declining since the Great Depression (which will always be the case in a healthy economy), began to rise again in the mid-'70s and accelerated like mad from the '80s forward in reaction to various policy changes. Wealth in the U.S. is now more concentrated than at any time since the Gilded Age. Various methods of measuring wealth differ slightly, but they all agree on that. Going by the figures developed by Edward Wolff at New York University (who has worked on this longer than anyone), the top 1% of American households now (as of 2010) control 37.1% of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 80% hold less than 15% of that wealth. Four-hundred people, at the top, now hold as much wealth as half of the U.S. population. Joseph Stiglitz recently authored a piece for Vanity Fair about the incredibly destructive consequences of that trend--if it isn't arrested, it's the end of the good ol' U.S. of A.
---
Left Hook!
http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/
Although hiliter did everything short of confessing that he doesn't know what he's talking about, I like to see people making claims like his try to get into specifics.
If we just play along, accept his story, here's what he's saying; He's a very fortunate person, making a decent government salary, while living in a very depressed area of the country (His stated home prices are questionable as a down payment where I live).
But he thinks he's a wealthy land baron, because of where he lives. This is why you hear those thick country drawls in calls to righty radio, it's the people who believe they're the elites because they live in the poorest areas of the country.
So he's mortgaged the crap out of himself, made the personal choice to stretch his expenses with the goal of dying with a high net worth.
And he thinks everybody else should cater to his bad choices.
Again, it's more likely that hiliter is another internet Walter Mitty in some low level job, but if he's for real, he doesn't understand that he's still not anywhere near that 1% that is being considered for an end to their gravy train, or those with real accumulated wealth. He just thinks he is.
As for his statement that property prices are not dropping he's just plain lying through his teeth.
I really feel sorry for the people who rent from him.
What bad choices? I’m not asking for anything except for my taxes not to go up.
Yes and if my houses were in your area they would be worth much much more, and my government salary would also adjust accordingly.
Umm no retiring early with a high net worth yes dyeing not so much.
There are multiple people on this page who have called for people making as little as 75k to pay higher taxes. I’m the one who has been saying that 180k isn’t that rich.
$180k is DEFINITELY a lot of money. You can't say otherwise.
He's doing fine. There are people out there with real problems, who can't afford to make the kind of investments he's whining about.
TRy to forget about some anonymous poster ( I only saw one) whose opinion is that an income of 100k should be taxed more. We're talking about proposed actual changes to the system. You've said you think you might break 200k this year, which might put a small portion of your income into a higher bracket.
You'll still make more money. Is this that fvcking difficult to understand? This is why everybody thinks you're some kid making up your entire story, it's hard to believe you could even support yourself, given the thinking you demonstrate in your posts.
Home prices have settled down here, but the median was around 600k a few years ago, slightly less than the value of all of your homes combined. You're not honestly dim enough to think that somebody doing your same government job here is paid several times your salary, are you ?
Have you even moved out of your parents' house yet ? Because it would seem you'd understand what a significant part of most peoples' budgets their housing is.
No, moving from Possum Holler to Marina Del Rey doesn't require a slight adjustment in income. You wouldn't have a half dozen homes worth more if you lived in civilization, you'd be struggling to stay in your condo.
180k is not that rich, in many areas of the country. What you don't seem t get is that, your story, imaginary or not, is one of extreme good fortune; You're making a modern American salary in a 1950s environment. Your biggest complaint is that you can't afford a bunch of investments you've got yourself into because you're lazy and don't want to work too long, and you don't like contributing to the tax system that pays you and allows you to dream of retiring early.
Do you really not understand how much of a whining victim you sound like ?
If your story is for real, also consider this; Your spelling and grammar seem stunted at somewhere around the elementary school level, and your logic is around there, too. You're lazy in your thinking, and not too bright, yet you claim to be making three times the median national income. You should be thanking your lucky stars, not complaining.
There are people in this country who are smarter, more creative, more ambitious, harder working, and more talented than you, who are just getting by. You have been blessed. Please stop whining.
faux is making this happen and the repuglicons are gleefully falling in line. faux controls them, not the other way around.
I see too much power and money concentrated in the 1% that I don't think we have a prayer, honestly.
[*] Click for chart re 1%