Tax breaks for the wealthy stayed with the wealthy. Can anybody disprove this with cited factual statements?

Question

Heres the source and quoted comments to backup my statement. This is categorized here because it was a governmental decision.

CEO pay and benefits on the rise: report

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070829/usa_economy_pay.html?.v=1

"At the same time, workers at the bottom rung of the U.S. economy received the first federal minimum wage increase in a decade. But the new wage of $5.85 an hour, after being adjusted for inflation, stands 7 percent below where the minimum wage stood a decade ago."

""CEO pay, over that same decade, has increased by roughly 45 percent," the study found.""

Look at that whopping $5.85 per hour. Is that an incentive to get people up off the couch, welfare and go to work? heheheheh what a joke. Just so ya know i do work and get a decent salary.

Hey hockey bush gave permanent tax breaks to the rich to help the economy. The federal minimum wage is at $5.85. The rich use loopholes to avoid taxes or like helmsley refuse to pay.

so far no one has cited any creditable sources. Just your own personal rant. Shut off your cable or satelite tv and go outside take a look at the real world and you will see.. Oh yeah it disgusts you so you go back in shut the door and do nothing.

hieberanarcher i'll guareentee i'm more educated than you and i earned it because of knowledge. Tax for breaks to the wealthy was meant to create higher incomes for the lower class and disapearing middle class not the ceo's but as the article states it has done the opposite. Not supprised anything GWB has done has had the opposite effect than what he said it would.

Common sense says the extra money came from tax breaks. The economy has been terrible, jobs went offshore, gas prices have been outrageous and the majority of the people have no money left to buy goods and services to stimulate the economy.

Answer 1

Your supporting data isn't really about tax breaks, it's about executive compensation. If you want to examine the effect of the tax cuts, take a look at the table linked below. It shows the results of the 2001 and 2003 tax breaks. The share of Federal tax paid by people making a million dollars or more dropped by 0.4 percent, and the percent paid by people making 500K - 1Mil dropped by 0.1 percent. At the same time, the share of Federal tax paid by people making 75-100K rose 0.1% and the share paid by people making 100-200K rose by 0.4%, and the share paid by those making 200-500K rose 0.6%. People making less than 75K paid the same or less. So the tax cuts benefitted the lowest-paid and the highest-paid, at the expense of the middle class.

Of course, overall, EVERYBODY paid less in taxes. People making 10-20K got to keep an additional $161 (1.06% of their average income), while people making over a million got to keep an additional $119,000 (3.84% of their average income). The middle class (75-100K) got to keep an additional $1,651 (1.87% of their average income).

Or course, while everyone is paying less, the debt is mounting.

I'd say the numbers pretty much support your claim.

Answer 2

Ummm, no, tax breaks affected all classes of tax payers. If I make X amount per year, and Y percent is taken in taxes, I keep more money if Y is lowered. Since the lowering of Y occurred across the board, everyone saved money on paying taxes. CEOs tend to make more because they can invest more, causing them to make more, and if managed well the cycle continues. The average worker can do this too, but they don't receive as big of a boost as a CEO might. Plus, CEOs can and usually are corrupt, they set their own pay and the pay of workers. In my opinion, CEOs make way too much money.

Answer 3

While they are at it why don't they show us the law that says we must pay taxes on our hard earned labor.

Do not show me Title 26 - it is a title and it only applies to certain businesses in the District of Columbia - not the Statesman

Show me where the 16th Amendment was legally ratified

Don't give me Title number or Amendments that give us more confusing language and BS

Just show us a law!

The law - that is all!

Wow a couple of tax statements on Answers and the Fed's put their best disinformation force out instantly to counter them.

Have you ever seen so many American's willing to support and Answer in support of the IRS

It really is quite rediculous

They have trolls for every political and finacial avenue covered.

And they all say that Government isn't that big - yeah right!

Answer 4

I agree with you whole heatedly, but for some reason the poorer undereducated workers of this country still vote Republican for fear of taxes; or don't vote at all. The rich will always vote for their friends int the Republican party as every time they get voted in, the rich get a tax cut. And laugh all the way to the bank.

Besides I don't know how we can think this way, Wasn't it the "great communicator (liar)", Ronald ReaGUN that told us to give the tax breaks to the rich and we will have "trickle down economics?" Would be a joke if it were not so sad.

I just can't figure out how the suckers in the red states fall for it every time!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 5

Tax cuts are for everyone, and while the market soared over the past 5 years, average Joe's pension gained value, jobs were created, incomes increased, and poverty levels are now beginning to drop. Where do you get your information?

Look at the thumbs down. I quoted real economic statistics, yet the Liberals simply refuse to believe them. Funny how they love to avoid the truth. What? a good economy will not help the poor? Give me a break.

Answer 6

The rich pay much more in taxes than you know...And ultimately aren't you just a bit jealous that you aren't a 1 percenter? And don't forget the camel through the eye of the needle warning...It means if you are charitable by nature you could never accumulate such wealth to begin with.So unless you have personally written a check for 1 million or more to the I.R.S. you can't judge anyone fairly.

Answer 7

The rich are getting richer. The CEO's are pocketing more money. But where in this article did it mention anything about how much they paid in taxes or how much they got back?

Maybe I misunderstood the article or don't understand the whole tax thing.

Answer 8

You are not looking at the entire spectrum; only the extremes on both ends. The ultra rich will get richer, whether taxed or not, because that is what they do. There is no utility in comparing the ultra rich with minimum wage earners because they rarely remain minimum wage earners for long. They typically advance above minimum wage and are replaced by other minimum wage earners. (I started out at minimum wage back in high school and my hourly wages increased by over 100% in the first year.)

So your examples do not reflect what is really happening. You need to give us more data before making your initial claim. Besides, you are making a statement and asking us to disprove it. Logically, the burden is on the person making the statement to prove it. You haven't come close.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

EDIT: I assume you were the one who gave the above answer a "thumbs down," but gave no counter-argument. OK, so here are some more numbers for you to consider.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Minimum wage workers tend to be young. About half of all hourly-paid workers earning $5.15 or less were under age 25, and about one-fourth were age 16-19.” This statistic has remained relatively constant since the minimum wage was instituted. This demonstrates that people tend to grow out of minimum wage positions as they get older. (Because if they didn’t, the age of most minimum wage earners would increase over time.)

In fact, in 2005, only about 2.5 percent of all hourly-paid workers earned $5.15 or less. More than a quarter of these workers are between the ages of 16 and 19. So less than 1.9% of all hourly-paid workers earn minimum wage. About 60 percent of minimum wage earners are part-time workers. And only 1.5 percent of hourly-paid workers over the age of 25 made minimum wage. (See BLS statistics, cited below.)

Finally, here is another reason minimum wage is irrelevant to the point you are trying to make: about THREE QUARTERS of all workers earning minimum wage or less in 2004 were employed in service occupations, mostly in food service jobs. (I don’t have 2006 numbers at my disposal, but the numbers did not change much between 2002 and 2004, so they probably didn’t change much since 2004.) These minimum wage earners typically supplement their incomes with tips, and many of them earn much more in tips than in salary. Since their compensation is not tied to the minimum wage anyway, they do not make up a statistically reliable group on which to base your assertion.

So until you come up with reasonable support for your hypothesis, there is really nothing to disprove.

Answer 9

Yes it was shameful of the Democrats to pass such a meager minimum wage bill. They should have passed a living wage bill. The minimum wage should be $19.75 and not a penny less.

I will not rest till every democrat member of congress who suported such a substandard lifestyle is voted out of office!

Answer 10

ME!!! 25% increase in the last 2 yrs.