*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by enoch.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Can-I-piss-on-you-8482-Ed-Asner-gets-the-upper-hand

Can I piss on you?’: Ed Asner gets the upper hand has been added as a related post - related requested by Trancecoach.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Asner, Konopacki, Glass, 2008, financial crisis' to 'Asner, Konopacki, Glass, 2008, financial crisis, California Teachers Union' - edited by Trancecoach

http://videosift.com/video/Lets-Go-Riot

http://videosift.com/video/Muse-Uprising

The fact is when the tax rate was much more fair and taxing the rich was accepted we had the most unprecedented period of growth in the history of the world. It was like fiscal viagra. We've given up on that period from the 50s to the 70s and instead are just asking to go back to the 90s taxation. When rich people were still doing INCREDIBLY WELL, and they won't budge.

It's amazing how much power we give the rich in our society, that's the only way they are able to do these things.

Eat the rich.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, December 7th, 2012 1:46am PST - promote requested by lavoll.

Propaganda bull shit.. The rich pay way the fuck more than others.

... to politicians and lobbyists.

See, I told you there were rich people that came to Videosift!

*length=7:50 This is rich!

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 7:50 - length declared by PlayhousePals.

"Haters wanna hate, lovers wanna love
I don't even want, none of the above
I want to piss on you, yes I do I'll piss on you , I 'll pee on yooooo.."

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

The top 10% pay 70% of the tax. The bottom 50 pay 2%.

Yep the rich are really sticking it to the people.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Then I researched your link and the numbers. You are incorrect, sir.

What I want to say to you is extremely fucking brutal... but I am breathing, calming myself down and keeping it to myself.

Moot point really when you consider the creative means the "rich" have to hide the BULK of their liquid assets-Mooter than moot. Mootest.

So no. They don't pay some imaginary percentage and they ARE fucking the planet, and they are fucking laughing out loud while they are not paying the bulk of taxes.

......"Take me to your special place,
Close your eyes show me your face,

I'm gonna piss on it."
http://videosift.com/video/Can-I-piss-on-you-8482-Ed-Asner-gets-the-upper-hand

Poor Bob, punching stuff into google doesn't qualify as "research"

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Hrm, I wonder why THE BOTTOM 50 pay so little. Hrm...maybe it's because they're in THE BOTTOM 50 and don't have as much to give?

SHOCK!!

If only we had a strong middle class to even things out a bit. Congratulations Bob, you're demonstrating the point of the video. The Rich get taxed more, because they can afford it. When you have such a large disparity in incomes such as we have now. flat taxes don't fucking work dumbass. It would be nice if they did, but reality just doesn't work that way.

The bottom 50 pay little or no tax because there is really no point in taxing them more. a higher percentage of a small amount is still a small amount silly. Meanwhile you have the top 1 percent. You can take over 90 percent of their entire wealth and they'd still be extremely wealthy. No one's even asking for that much in taxes. The amount extra they are being asked to pay is paltry. They spend many multiple times more than that on political campaigns so they can continue to keep their taxes low. Imagine if that money actually did something more than just buy fucking ugly billboards and lawn signs and commercials.

We don't live in a world of 3 classes anymore. lower/middle/upper. It's more like lower/middle/upper/VERY upper/OBSCENELY upper.

When your upper class is poor compared to the obscenely wealthy. you've got a problem. Money must flow for an economy to work. Money doesn't flow when it's being hoarded at the top. Trickle down economics might actually work if money actually trickled down. Problem is, it doesn't. It stays at the top.

You really should have just watched the video bob, then I wouldn't have to repeat it for you. We all know you have comprehension problems, but still.

The numbers are correct -- you are the blind one.

By creative Rich you mean only paying 70% instead of 90 or 100% of the tax burden?

Do the rich have way more extra money and could pay more in tax - sure. But don't bitch at them when they are carrying you water.

You need to be looking at Government cuts first.

Sounds like your argument is more about wage in equality. I don't disagree with that. Wages for the middle have been going backwards for 3 decades. Can some companies pay workers more? GE, Wal-Mart, McDonald's sure could and many others.

But to say that the rich are not paying enough of the burden I say BS.
Cut Government spending first.

False. First of all, the top 10% aren't rich, most of them are middle class. Second of all, the top 10% don't pay 70% of "the tax" per your own link they pay that high a percentage of the INCOME tax. What percentage of the payroll tax (40% of federal revenue, and equal in magnitude to income tax) do they pay? If we count their capital gains as income, what's their effective tax rate? How about if we count all taxes (e.g. sales), and break down the effective tax rate?

I'm fine with cutting spending, so long as the spending getting cut in lieu of tax increases comes entirely from the spending funded by the income tax which you are apparently complaining is too progressive. That means slashing the defense budget exclusively because frankly that is the only significant contributor to the deficit paid out of the general fund (other than interest on your party's debt, much of which is owed to the Social Security fund). Medicare and Social Security are both financed by FICA which is not the unfair tax you seem so concerned about.

Any dollar cut from Social Security and Medicare should be repaid by a dollar of payroll tax cuts, not income tax cuts.

OK. I will give you a second chance. Why don't you go back to your source and then show me how you are crunching the math?

Yeah, "America's oldest grassroots taxpayer organization working for lower taxes, smaller government". Doesn't sound RIGHT WING AT ALL.

nuh-uh! I know you are but what am I?

Keep trying Bob, one of these days you'll learn how to speak like an adult.

Funny. no one is saying we shouldn't cut spending. It seems rather arbitrary for you to say we should cut spending FIRST. Why can't we do both cut spending and tax increases? Why should it matter what "order" they go in? Rational people would hit it from both ends.

Or are you just playing childish partisan games again. Even the right is finally breaking ranks and giving the middle finger to Grover Norquist. So your opinions are in the minority and as you well know, the minority opinion doesn't go far in a democracy.

The reality is that the tax burden on the wealthy has declined steadily over the last few decades. The economy was doing great when taxes were higher, so your argument does not reflect reality as usual.

looks like you've bitten off more than you can chew again.

You need to stop drinking main stream media koolaid. Obama's plan is more spending and tax the rich more and a little spending cut over time. You are so blind.
Even the Democrats constantly vote against Obama's Budget.

We have a spending problem not a tax the rich more problem. Cut spending first. The government is out of control.

Why are you bringing Obama into this? He has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Or is this another case of the right wing going "LOOK OVER THERE!"

When you can't win the argument, change the subject right?

If it was an MSNBC link you would be fine with that But MSNBC does post facts so I had to look elsewhere.

That right the top 10% are not rich but pay way more of the burden that all else.

having to pay 70% of the total Federal personal income tax is more that enough.

Why should they pay more?

I don't care what gets cut. Cut defense, I don't care. Cut all non social programs by 20% or whatever it takes. I am fine with that.

Cut mortgage deductions and child credits - Fine.

Cut business deductions also.

*controversy

It's strange the urine stream is missing in this video at 2:55
You can hear the sound effect. Was this video sanitized in response to http://videosift.com/video/Can-I-piss-on-you-8482-Ed-Asner-gets-the-upper-hand or was the urine stream never present in the original animation?

Looks like it. No piss stream for me either.

I would like to see the numbers on the amount of income compared with those numbers.

click the link

It's a sad comment on our society that even when you explain what's happening in terms even a child could understand, we still have people like bob screaming "look over there!" right before sticking his head back into the sand.

If it was just him, it wouldn't be so bad, but bob's pretty much representing 40+% of the voting public.

That's what's gonna destroy us all. We're gonna have to eventually find some way to get through to these people.

Perhaps we shouldn't rely on a system with such extreme incentives in place anymore. Rome was cool while it lasted eh?

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, December 7th, 2012 1:46am PST - promote requested by hpqp.

Debating bobknight is akin to trying to have a serious conversation with a turnip.

I call Shenanigans on the "piss edit" at the 3 minute mark!

Death from old age has a way of getting through to people.

That 40+% voting bloc you spoke of? a high percentage of that number are old (and white)

That's the sad disturbing reality. change is slow...painfully slow. Some people will never change their mind. all you can do is wait for them to die and be replaced by people who have opinions that reflect reality better.

We still have people who don't think women should vote. We still have people who think black people should be back in chains. Sure they're in the minority and they're going to be dead from natural causes relatively soon, but still.

The top 10% pay 70% of the tax. The bottom 50 pay 2%. Not one on you fools have disputed this fact but all want the rich to pay even more.

The only numbers up for debate here are percentage of income that goes to tax. If poorer people are paying less income tax, it's because the rich are making so much more, which is yet another problem, but one for another comment thread.

Do you, @bobknight33 , think rich people should pay a lower % of their income in taxes than everyone else? If so, why?

When you have more money than you, your kids, your kid's kids, etc etc etc. will EVER need. that's how it works.

you talk about how you don't like the huge income gap either. Well that's what happens when you have a huge gap. Even a small percentage of a wealthy person's income is a lot of fucking money and a larger amount of percentage of a small income is still a TINY amount of money.

Basic math dude

If you honestly think the rich should pay 50 percent and the poor should pay 50 percent, then you're even more stupid than I already thought you are. That's not how economics works.

The rich pay a higher rate than the poor.

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly
10% Bracket $0 – $17,400
15% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700
25% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700
28% Bracket $142,700 – $217,450
33% Bracket $217,450 – $388,350
35% Bracket Over $388,350

These are just Federal Tax rates. Then add state and local and you could end up paying over %50 in taxes. Is that fair?
At the top rate if one was earning 400k then they would pay 140k just in Fed tax. That's a big chunk of government cheese.


My CEO pulls down a base of $3million a year. That would give him a $1 - 1.5 million in Federal / State and local tax.

Sure he makes a lot but he also pays a lot.

The left would say that he needs to pay more of his "fair share" .

Even though I think he could pay more I believe that he is paying his fair share.

I am sure he hires the best accountants to take every possible deduction, as you and I would do in that situation.

IF you want the rich to pay more then eliminating some deductions form the rich seem like a good approach.

All that might be true if the very rich made most of their money off regular job-type income, but they don't. They make it off capital gains. Those funds are literally taxed at poverty rate. Rupert Murdoch and Mitt Romney, are the classic examples. If we take their word for it, they pay less than working class people while earning millions each year. Do you think that's right?

@bobknight33 your oversimplified numbers don't tell the entire story, because you don't understand marginal tax rates.

http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2013-federal-income-tax-brackets-and-marginal-rates/

"Keep in mind that the tax rates listed in these tables are marginal rates. That means that you do not owe your rate on all of your income. For example, if you single, you earn $100,000 per year, and Scenario 2 (tax cuts expire for all) is the prevailing law, you would not owe 31% on all of your income — you would not owe $38,000 to the federal government. You would owe 15% of 36,250, 28% of $51,600 (the difference between the top and the threshold of the second tax bracket), and 31% of $12,150 (the difference between your income and the threshold of the third tax bracket).

That calculation results in $5,437.50 plus $14,448 plus $3,766.50, or $23,652. That’s an effective tax rate of about 23.7% before your credits are taken into account, assuming your taxable income is the same as your gross income. Your effective tax rate could be much lower if deductions have already reduced your taxable income to $100,000 from a larger gross income. For example, if a 401(k) contribution reduced your taxable income from $115,000 to $100,000, you would still use the same tax calculation I’ve described here, but your effective tax rate would be 20.6%."

I love this retarded argument.

What simpletons don't seem to understand: The top 10% pay something like 50% of the taxes, but they have 90% of the money. The top 1% has more money than the body 90% combined.