foolsguinea (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
foolsguinea) wrote2011-03-18 05:30 pm
foolsguinea) wrote2011-03-18 05:30 pm
Entry tags:
more
http://www.fightbacknews.org/2011/3/15/minnesota-republicans-say-poor-people-money-should-be-outlaws
St. Paul, MN – Minnesota Republicans are pushing legislation that would make it a crime for people on public assistance to have more $20 in cash in their pockets any given month. This represents a change from their initial proposal, which banned them from having any money at all.
Yes, really. But the President might be a foreign Negro half-breed towelhead Nazi somethingorother, so vote GOP!
_
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110316/ts_yblog_thelookout/chart-shows-low-tax-burden-for-rich
This one's kind of complex. Time is on the y-axis, today is at bottom.
What to make of all those swirling lines? The chart shows how tax burdens for different income levels have fluctuated over the last century, adjusted for inflation. Blue areas represent a historically low tax burden for a specific income level, while red areas represent a historically high burden.
So in a nutshell, the chart shows that until around 1940, tax burdens were low for everyone, in historical terms. Then they rose sharply for everyone until about 1970. At that point, the rich and poor began to diverge. Those making around $10,000 to around $50,000 per year enjoyed a comparatively low-tax period in the 70s, but by the early 80s they were taxed slightly higher than the historical average. In the 2000s, their tax rate came back down a bit. By contrast, those making more than roughly $200,000 a year saw a sharp decrease in their tax burden starting in the 80s. That trend has continued to this day.
_
OK, so, since Geo. H. W. Bush was in the White House, the super-rich have paid a lower proportion of their income in taxes than at any point during the postwar boom. And the government is in dire debt & still digging a hole. So what? Surely the super-rich only have a little money, there are so few of them!
Well, you could try & read this link: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
_
But that gets a bit dry, so I'll rely on noted libertarian tv personality Bill Maher:
http://rackjite.com/archives/6715-New-Rules-Bill-Maher,-Beat-the-rich-with-a-stick-March-11,-2011.html
Bill Maher talks about cute reality shows where some of the richest Americans visit poor people and give them money, but most of the video clip is about the increasing income disparity in the United States; and most Americans seem to be confused that the rich really don't have your interests at heart. The top 400 people have more money than the bottom 150 million people combined. Between the years 1980 and 2005, 80 percent of all new income generated in this country went to the richest 1 percent. Maher notes: "Let me put this into terms even you fat ass Teabaggers can understand: say a 100 Americans get together and order a 100 slice pizza. The pizza arrives; they open the box. And the first guy takes 80 slices. And if someone suggests 'Why don't you just take 79?' "THAT'S SOCIALISM!'"
(via)
St. Paul, MN – Minnesota Republicans are pushing legislation that would make it a crime for people on public assistance to have more $20 in cash in their pockets any given month. This represents a change from their initial proposal, which banned them from having any money at all.
Yes, really. But the President might be a foreign Negro half-breed towelhead Nazi somethingorother, so vote GOP!
_
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110316/ts_yblog_thelookout/chart-shows-low-tax-burden-for-rich
This one's kind of complex. Time is on the y-axis, today is at bottom.
What to make of all those swirling lines? The chart shows how tax burdens for different income levels have fluctuated over the last century, adjusted for inflation. Blue areas represent a historically low tax burden for a specific income level, while red areas represent a historically high burden.
So in a nutshell, the chart shows that until around 1940, tax burdens were low for everyone, in historical terms. Then they rose sharply for everyone until about 1970. At that point, the rich and poor began to diverge. Those making around $10,000 to around $50,000 per year enjoyed a comparatively low-tax period in the 70s, but by the early 80s they were taxed slightly higher than the historical average. In the 2000s, their tax rate came back down a bit. By contrast, those making more than roughly $200,000 a year saw a sharp decrease in their tax burden starting in the 80s. That trend has continued to this day.
_
OK, so, since Geo. H. W. Bush was in the White House, the super-rich have paid a lower proportion of their income in taxes than at any point during the postwar boom. And the government is in dire debt & still digging a hole. So what? Surely the super-rich only have a little money, there are so few of them!
Well, you could try & read this link: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
_
But that gets a bit dry, so I'll rely on noted libertarian tv personality Bill Maher:
http://rackjite.com/archives/6715-New-Rules-Bill-Maher,-Beat-the-rich-with-a-stick-March-11,-2011.html
Bill Maher talks about cute reality shows where some of the richest Americans visit poor people and give them money, but most of the video clip is about the increasing income disparity in the United States; and most Americans seem to be confused that the rich really don't have your interests at heart. The top 400 people have more money than the bottom 150 million people combined. Between the years 1980 and 2005, 80 percent of all new income generated in this country went to the richest 1 percent. Maher notes: "Let me put this into terms even you fat ass Teabaggers can understand: say a 100 Americans get together and order a 100 slice pizza. The pizza arrives; they open the box. And the first guy takes 80 slices. And if someone suggests 'Why don't you just take 79?' "THAT'S SOCIALISM!'"
(via)