Hillary Clinton says rich don't pay their fair share

Maybe she needs to take some basic math classes.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

She portrays the top income earners as people that are dodging taxes or paying nothing. In reality, the vast majority of federal income tax is paid for by the top 10% of income earners. How is that not paying their share? You can always ask them to pay more, but I wouldn't portray them as some kind of opportunistic thieves dodging their responsibilities. Seems to me, she's just lying to the public and trying to generate populist support. Shame she can't discuss the real facts in an intelligent manner.

Even more interesting is that the top 1% accounts for 20% of the gross earnings, but pays 40% of the tax. They're paying double the tax burden. Maybe they could pay more, but how does that correlate to them "not paying their fair share".

Certainly, policies can be undertaken to improve the income distribution in this country - education seems to be the key for that, but simply demanding that money get redistributed is not in line with the constitution or the founding ideals of this country.

Why doesn't she pay her fair share and then complain about the rich not paying theirs...and last time I checked the rich were being milked like cows...

lol communist.

Why doesn't she pay her fair share and then complain about the rich not paying theirs...and last time I checked the rich were being milked like cows...

CHOASXIII

O Sillary Klinton u iz so sillyz.

I agree with her to tell the truth....But this is the view of a middle class man. But there is some truth in that as big business does run this country.MgamerBD

You should give a link to clinton's statement to. However I'm inclined to believe that she means they don't pay a fair share in proportion to the amount they make.

[QUOTE="CHOASXIII"]

Why doesn't she pay her fair share and then complain about the rich not paying theirs...and last time I checked the rich were being milked like cows...

sonicare

Well my opinion is people earned that money just like people that aren't rich and to penalize them just because they can pay it is ridiculous..

You should give a link to clinton's statement to. However I'm inclined to believe that she means they don't pay a fair share in proportion to the amount they make.

Espada12

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/28/clinton-rich-arent-paying-fair-share/?hpt=Sbin&fbid=bCzCsjjbezX

Abbreviated quote from Billary.

The rich pay a lower percentage of their income than people with lower incomes. That's not particularly fair.PannicAtack

Maybe she needs to take some basic math classes.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

She portrays the top income earners as people that are dodging taxes or paying nothing. In reality, the vast majority of federal income tax is paid for by the top 10% of income earners. How is that not paying their share? You can always ask them to pay more, but I wouldn't portray them as some kind of opportunistic thieves dodging their responsibilities. Seems to me, she's just lying to the public and trying to generate populist support. Shame she can't discuss the real facts in an intelligent manner.

Even more interesting is that the top 1% accounts for 20% of the gross earnings, but pays 40% of the tax. They're paying double the tax burden. Maybe they could pay more, but how does that correlate to them "not paying their fair share".

Certainly, policies can be undertaken to improve the income distribution in this country - education seems to be the key for that, but simply demanding that money get redistributed is not in line with the constitution or the founding ideals of this country.

sonicare

Why should taxes be apportioned by percentage of income instead of a flat tax applied equally to all peoples? That seems far more fair. Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]The rich pay a lower percentage of their income than people with lower incomes. That's not particularly fair.sonicare

.. They do dodge taxes.... If you actually look into it there are some serious loop holes and ridiculous write offs they can make.. sSubZerOo

Why should taxes be apportioned by percentage of income instead of a flat tax applied equally to all peoples? That seems far more fair. Vandalvideo

.. They do dodge taxes.... If you actually look into it there are some serious loop holes and ridiculous write offs they can make.. sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Why should taxes be apportioned by percentage of income instead of a flat tax applied equally to all peoples? That seems far more fair. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]The rich pay a lower percentage of their income than people with lower incomes. That's not particularly fair.PannicAtack

Why should taxes be apportioned by percentage of income instead of a flat tax applied equally to all peoples? That seems far more fair. Vandalvideo

.. Because its inefficent in creating funds for the government to use.. its either too low to properly fund government and services we enjoy every day, or its too high where the middle and lower class are squeezed.. This should be pretty obvious.. Taxes were never about being fair, and neither was capitalism.. People seem to think so, when it never was to beign with..

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Why should taxes be apportioned by percentage of income instead of a flat tax applied equally to all peoples? That seems far more fair. Plzhelpmelearn

[QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Why should taxes be apportioned by percentage of income instead of a flat tax applied equally to all peoples? That seems far more fair. Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]The rich pay a lower percentage of their income than people with lower incomes. That's not particularly fair.sonicare

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"] Because that does not take into consideration that some people make vastly more money than others. You think a BK employee making 10 grand net a year should pay the same as the CEO of BK making probably 10 million+?sonicare

Well that doesn't happen.. And when it does its the exact opposite.. The extremely rich lobbying for something that benefits them..

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] No they don't. The percentage of income tax that someone pays goes up as they make more money. sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]The rich pay a lower percentage of their income than people with lower incomes. That's not particularly fair.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Why should taxes be apportioned by percentage of income instead of a flat tax applied equally to all peoples? That seems far more fair. Vandalvideo

Maybe she needs to take some basic math classes.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

She portrays the top income earners as people that are dodging taxes or paying nothing. In reality, the vast majority of federal income tax is paid for by the top 10% of income earners. How is that not paying their share? You can always ask them to pay more, but I wouldn't portray them as some kind of opportunistic thieves dodging their responsibilities. Seems to me, she's just lying to the public and trying to generate populist support. Shame she can't discuss the real facts in an intelligent manner.

Even more interesting is that the top 1% accounts for 20% of the gross earnings, but pays 40% of the tax. They're paying double the tax burden. Maybe they could pay more, but how does that correlate to them "not paying their fair share".

Certainly, policies can be undertaken to improve the income distribution in this country - education seems to be the key for that, but simply demanding that money get redistributed is not in line with the constitution or the founding ideals of this country.

sonicare

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Why should taxes be apportioned by percentage of income instead of a flat tax applied equally to all peoples? That seems far more fair. Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"] Because that does not take into consideration that some people make vastly more money than others. You think a BK employee making 10 grand net a year should pay the same as the CEO of BK making probably 10 million+?Plzhelpmelearn

I would like to correct the vaste amounts with the majority of wealth.. The United States has one of the largest wealth disparites in the Western World.. The average CEO in the US gets paid something over 200 times the amount of a average employee there.. While in Europe its around 50.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I find that dubious.

PannicAtack

[QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"] Because they are getting more. Philosophically speaking I understand the point that we are all individuals and equal in our humanity, but unfortunately in practicality that is where "equal" ends. The rich have vast amounts of income that they can dispose of and not enter anywhere close to struggling for survival. Meanwhile, the lowest earners don't even pay taxes and struggle everyday to make ends meet.Vandalvideo

Justification? Because they have the most wealth for taxation.. The radical majority of wealth in the US is held by a select few.. If the Us government did a flat tax it would be highly ineffictive.. Becuase you will be taxing the larger population yes but they have far far far less wealth.. In the end it would lead to budget crisis..

Maybe she needs to take some basic math classes.

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

She portrays the top income earners as people that are dodging taxes or paying nothing. In reality, the vast majority of federal income tax is paid for by the top 10% of income earners. How is that not paying their share? You can always ask them to pay more, but I wouldn't portray them as some kind of opportunistic thieves dodging their responsibilities. Seems to me, she's just lying to the public and trying to generate populist support. Shame she can't discuss the real facts in an intelligent manner.

Even more interesting is that the top 1% accounts for 20% of the gross earnings, but pays 40% of the tax. They're paying double the tax burden. Maybe they could pay more, but how does that correlate to them "not paying their fair share".

Certainly, policies can be undertaken to improve the income distribution in this country - education seems to be the key for that, but simply demanding that money get redistributed is not in line with the constitution or the founding ideals of this country.

Justification? Because they have the most wealth for taxation.. The radical majority of wealth in the US is held by a select few.. If the Us government did a flat tax it would be highly ineffictive.. Becuase you will be taxing the larger population yes but they have far far far less wealth.. In the end it would lead to budget crisis..sSubZerOo

Circular argument is circular. I asked you why people who make more should pay more, and you tell me because they make more. That doesn't answer the question. I'm looking for a justification, an argument. Not circular reasoning. Vandalvideo

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="sonicare"] No they don't. The percentage of income tax that someone pays goes up as they make more money. sonicare

[QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Why should those who make more necessarily have to pay more? sSubZerOo

I would like to correct the vaste amounts with the majority of wealth.. The United States has one of the largest wealth disparites in the Western World.. The average CEO in the US gets paid something over 200 times the amount of a average employee there.. While in Europe its around 50.

[QUOTE="Plzhelpmelearn"] Because they are getting more. Philosophically speaking I understand the point that we are all individuals and equal in our humanity, but unfortunately in practicality that is where "equal" ends. The rich have vast amounts of income that they can dispose of and not enter anywhere close to struggling for survival. Meanwhile, the lowest earners don't even pay taxes and struggle everyday to make ends meet.Vandalvideo

I'd say because they benefit from society more than the poor :P