What IS the Actual Distribution of Wealth?

[minnhawk]

Ollie: See, you can't. Your statement is false.

Fighting the so-called affordable health care act doesn't mean that the republicans deny health care benefits to the poor in any way shape or form. How did the republicans water it down? The Dems had full control of the house and senate. The dems were so in love with the AHC act that they DIDNT EVEN BOTHER TO READ IT BEFORE THEY PASSED IT!

Did the poor have health care before the AHC act was passed? Absolutely. No denial of health care benefits by the Republicans.

The only hate I see is coming from your red-hot rhetoric of the radical left.

[minnhawk]

care to post a serious post? Guess you can't.

[301spartan]

If Ollie thinks all his/her commie ideas work than why is most of Europe on the ropes.more lies just like his Dc hero.

[Hmac]

The Top 1% Will Pay 30 Percent Of The Nation's Federal Taxes In 2013

And the top 20%, which includes the top 1%, will pay nearly 72%! Looks to me like those folks are paying substantially more than their fair share.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/03/taxes-on-the-rich_n_2801206.html?utm_hp_ref=business


How much households at different income levels will pay in federal income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes for 2013:

Bottom 20 percent

Average income: $10,552.

Average tax bill: -$284.

Average tax rate: -2.7 percent.

Share of federal tax burden: -0.4 percent.

Middle 20 percent

Average income: $46,562.

Average tax bill: $6,436.

Average tax rate: 13.8 percent.

Share of federal tax burden: 8.6 percent.

Top 20 percent

Average income: $204,490.

Average tax bill: $55,533.

Average tax rate: 27.2 percent.

Share of federal tax burden: 71.8 percent.

Top 1 percent

Average income: $1.4 million.

Average tax bill: $514,144.

Average tax rate: 35.5 percent.

Share of federal tax burden: 30.2 percent.

Note: The average family in the bottom 20 percent of households pays no federal taxes. Instead, many families in this group get payments from the federal government by claiming more in credits than they owe in taxes, giving them a negative tax rate.

Source: Tax Policy Center[/QUOTE]

[NMRMN]

The Top 1% Will Pay 30 Percent Of The Nation's Federal Taxes In 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/03/taxes-on-the-rich_n_2801206.html?utm_hp_ref=business
Source: Tax Policy Center

These statistics are why republicans, and anyone who wants a free country, do not want to increase taxes. The problem is NOT revenue. The problem is not higher income earners paying enough already. The problem IS SPENDING.

[Big and Tasty]

Once again, I did it. I knew I should not have, but I did. I read this thread and and my IQ plummeted. It seems to me natural selection would do some good in St Olaf's genus.

[St. Olaf]

How did the republicans water it down?

As I said, they loudly cried "Armageddon" to scare the public and legislators who might support it. As this happened the bill was weakened and many of its provisions didn't go into effect until years later.

The Dems had full control of the house and senate.

Not true. Read this:

Passage in the Senate was temporarily blocked by a filibuster threat by Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, who sided with the Republican minority. Nelson's support for the bill was won after it was amended to offer a higher rate of Medicaid reimbursement for Nebraska.[147] The compromise was derisively referred to as the "Cornhusker Kickback"[181] (and was later repealed by the reconciliation bill). On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill, eliminating the possibility of a filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against except one Republican senator (Jim Bunning, R-Ky.) not voting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Pr ... e_Care_Act

The dems were so in love with the AHC act that they DIDNT EVEN BOTHER TO READ IT BEFORE THEY PASSED IT!

That's laughable. Now how could you know that? You were there watching them?

Did the poor have health care before the AHC act was passed? Absolutely. No denial of health care benefits by the Republicans.

Wrong again. More than 40 million were not covered. This is and was common knowledge. Remember it now? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Pr ... e_Care_Act

[crbutler]

Umm..

There is a difference between not having insurance and not getting care.

By law, you present to an emergency room, and they have to evaluate you.

By law, if you are at a hospital, and you are not stable, they cannot discharge you. If you need hospitalization, they cannot transfer you to a different hospital without prior approval of that hospital's medical staff.

There are several laws that predate Obama's health care law that were already in place. The issue in a way is that ER care is a very inefficient way to deliver health care FOR THE PAYOR. It is very "efficient" if you don't have to pay anything, as you get on demand service. The interesting thing here is going to be what happens to the welfare class when they now have insurance, and now have to pay copays. There have been studies that show changes in peoples utilization over as little as $5 in copay.

Basically, the new law is supposed to make "all Americans" equal in their access to health care. If you believe that, I have this real nice deal on oceanfront property in Arizona for you. (note congress exempted themselves from this act...)

To pay for it, the rich have to pay more for their insurance. If you want lower copay/better coverage, it gets called premium coverage and you have to pay a "penalty" for it.

There are more issues and problems with this law than you can shake a stick at. Its like swiss cheese. Look at what they are trying to do now, MN's democrat representation in Washington all the sudden looked at what the medical devices taxes will do to medtronics... Gotta change the law for them. This law is going to end up like the old tax code. All kinds of special exemptions and inappropriate language. You probably don't remember that MN put in to law that health insurance HAD to pay for bone marrow transplants for breast cancer several years back, because there had been some preliminary finding that maybe it would work; despite the medical community insisting this finding was premature and experimental. Lo and behold, the studies showed you were more likely to die with that treatment... nevertheless, it is still a MN statute to the best of my knowledge.

The problem was not that a reform was needed. I think all concede that something needs to be done regarding how much money is going in to this area. The problem was that Obama and the congressional democrats "needed" a victory. The Democrats put together garbage and didn't properly do their jobs as legislators. This bill was rushed because the Dems knew that the midterms were coming and they had to appease their base; strangely enough come the elections it caused the house to go to the Republicans... That was bad law was shown in the supreme court battle, as the SCOTUS said that it was not their job to fix bad legislation, only to say whether or not it was constitutional. Contrary to what Obama and the Democrats had been insisting all alone, it was ruled a tax and constitutional on that basis. Notably, as I understand it, its the biggest tax increase in US history, bar none. (Which is also why a lot of folks are none too willing to go along with another round of progressive tax increases... these ones haven't hit yet. The Dems made sure that they didn't until after the 2012 Presidential election.)

Kind of similar to the gun laws in that the politicians (of both parties) have to be seen doing "something" rather than paying the political price and doing what is right. Fortunately, it seems that at least in MN the legislators are doing their jobs and listening to their constituents and trying to avoid emotional instead of factual legislation, at least so far. Probably out of fear of what the results will be come November 2014.

How anyone who knows anything about it could tout this law as a positive is beyond me.

[goalie]

Here's an idea.

Instead of making personal attacks and trying to start a "flame war," why not address the substance of the post?

For example, if denying health care to the poor....

I'll bite. It isn't any more "evil" to not provide free health care to someone than it is evil not to give them a car or a house.

Pursuit of happiness. Not happiness.



Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2

[jdege]

However, income or wealth is not (and should) not only be a reflection of "work" performed.

I've never done any kind of carpentry. But I'm pretty sure that I could build a backyard deck.

I am also sure that it would take me at least three times as long as it would for someone who knew what they were doing, that I'd probably waste or spoil half my material, and end up with something that wasn't anywhere near as good.

Still, I'd being doing three times as much work. Does that mean that the deck I produced was worth three times as much?

[NMRMN]

However, income or wealth is not (and should not) only be a reflection of "work" performed.

I've never done any kind of carpentry. But I'm pretty sure that I could build a backyard deck.
I am also sure that it would take me at least three times as long as it would for someone who knew what they were doing, that I'd probably waste or spoil half my material, and end up with something that wasn't anywhere near as good.
Still, I'd being doing three times as much work. Does that mean that the deck I produced was worth three times as much?

my point exactly.You cant think simplistically about income and work.

[Dutch]

I was born in a country where ordinary people like me ended up 52% income tax. A country where refugees knew their rights and set their housing on fire because it was below their standard.
A country where the guy down the street driving an Escalade or equivalent full size SUV was considered anti-social. Not because the gas consumption at the rate of almost 9 dollars a gallon (almost all tax), not because of the insane road tax (based on the weight of the car), not because of the sales tax of 21% on the vehicle and not because of the fact that he was banned from using parking ramps down town bur because of the environment. Yeah, right! the typical mentality was, that if I can't own it, I'm not going to work as hard as possible to have what he has (and wht I want), but to make sure he can't have it either.
Bah.

[St. Olaf]

Here's an idea.

Instead of making personal attacks and trying to start a "flame war," why not address the substance of the post?

For example, if denying health care to the poor....

I'll bite. It isn't any more "evil" to not provide free health care to someone than it is evil not to give them a car or a house.

A baby that needs well baby care to thrive and excel doesn't give a damn about a car, and the parents can take a bus......and we may not give people houses, but we DO provide housing for the homeless.

[grousemaster]

Here's an idea.

Instead of making personal attacks and trying to start a "flame war," why not address the substance of the post?

For example, if denying health care to the poor....

I'll bite. It isn't any more "evil" to not provide free health care to someone than it is evil not to give them a car or a house.

A baby that needs well baby care to thrive and excel doesn't give a damn about a car, and the parents can take a bus......and we may not give people houses, but we DO provide housing for the homeless.

So...not providing it for free is now considered "denying" it? I've been denied a lot of things in life when you put it that way, and now I know it's the GOP's fault that these things haven't been given to me. I'm starting to see the light....

[LePetomane]

I was born in a country where ordinary people like me ended up 52% income tax. A country where refugees knew their rights and set their housing on fire because it was below their standard.
A country where the guy down the street driving an Escalade or equivalent full size SUV was considered anti-social. Not because the gas consumption at the rate of almost 9 dollars a gallon (almost all tax), not because of the insane road tax (based on the weight of the car), not because of the sales tax of 21% on the vehicle and not because of the fact that he was banned from using parking ramps down town bur because of the environment. Yeah, right! the typical mentality was, that if I can't own it, I'm not going to work as hard as possible to have what he has (and wht I want), but to make sure he can't have it either.
Bah.

Dutch, Thanks for the good post. Regarding getting crap for driving an Escalade, some of my Volvo driving Minnesota Nice acquaintances give me crap for driving a Mercedes Benz. These libs even want to dictate what you drive.