Who pays more as a precentage of their income?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
Who pays more as a percentage of their income?

During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence.

“I certainly hope so,” he replied.

The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending.

The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment.

Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office.

By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent.

When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder.

It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy.

Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.


Energy-Tax-Credit.jpg





http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
 
Last edited:
Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real.

The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far.

Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that.


12440100v3_240x240_Front_Color-White.jpg



http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
 
With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window.

There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain.

The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining.

Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers.

Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.


99+percent+vs+1+percent+infographic+video+animation.jpg





http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
 
I read that the 6 Walton heirs have more money the the lowest 30% of earners in this nation. That sort on income inequality is a serious sign that something is wrong and the history of what happens to nations who permit such inequalities to continue to grow is not a very pleasant one.
 
And in Dude English, "your" means "you are", apparently...


The Dude said:
If I pay less in percentage but more than you make! In dude math; your a fucking loser.
Click to expand...

LOL at coon-ass colleges that supposedly graduated someone with those language skills....who still only earns $131K...after decades in the workforce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top