| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/13/2008 05:01:20 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Louis:
Whose idea was this "lending" library thing anyway? |
Benjamin Franklin, a well-known radical and designer of our government. |
Ben Franklin - Founding Father, Inventor, Whore Monger.
I wonder how long he would have lasted in today's spotlight. |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 05:26:51 PM · #77 |
After the Bush tax cuts (which actually skewed these numbers further towards the richest Americans - probably unintended):
The richest 1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax dollars
The richest 25% (people who make over $62K/year) of Americans pay 86% of the income tax dollars
The bottom 50% (half of the country) pay 3% of the income tax dollars
How much more skewed do we want to make it?
//www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
|
|
|
|
03/13/2008 05:40:33 PM · #78 |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 05:41:35 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That adds up to 129% |
and that's where the $12billion per daymonth is coming from.
Message edited by author 2008-03-13 17:41:50. |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 06:08:42 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
After the Bush tax cuts (which actually skewed these numbers further towards the richest Americans - probably unintended):
The richest 1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax dollars
The richest 25% (people who make over $62K/year) of Americans pay 86% of the income tax dollars
The bottom 50% (half of the country) pay 3% of the income tax dollars
How much more skewed do we want to make it?
//www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html |
But if the richest 20% have over 86% of the wealth, shouldn't they pay 86% of the taxes?
//sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
|
|
|
|
03/13/2008 09:21:50 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
After the Bush tax cuts (which actually skewed these numbers further towards the richest Americans - probably unintended):
The richest 1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax dollars
The richest 25% (people who make over $62K/year) of Americans pay 86% of the income tax dollars
The bottom 50% (half of the country) pay 3% of the income tax dollars
How much more skewed do we want to make it?
//www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html |
But if the richest 20% have over 86% of the wealth, shouldn't they pay 86% of the taxes?
//sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html |
income taxes are not based on wealth, it's based on income???? And that is clearly skewed.
and, do you propose we base taxes on peoples wealth rather then income? example: I work hard, save a nice little nest egg paying taxes on everything I earn, and just because i didn't spend it yet, it gets taxed again? I think that would lead to serious problems.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2008 09:22:24 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That adds up to 129% |
Um, I hope that's a joke.
edit to explain:
the top 1% (40% of revenue) is included in the top 25% (86% of revenue). So you can't add them up.
But if you want to do some math, 86% (top 25%) + 3% (bottom 50%) = 89% So that must mean the group I didn't mention is 11% (top 50% minus the top 25%)
Or in other words, half the people pay 97% of the income taxes, the other half pay 3%.
Message edited by author 2008-03-13 21:30:21.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2008 11:45:54 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
After the Bush tax cuts (which actually skewed these numbers further towards the richest Americans - probably unintended):
The richest 1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax dollars
The richest 25% (people who make over $62K/year) of Americans pay 86% of the income tax dollars
The bottom 50% (half of the country) pay 3% of the income tax dollars
How much more skewed do we want to make it?
//www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html |
But if the richest 20% have over 86% of the wealth, shouldn't they pay 86% of the taxes?
//sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html |
income taxes are not based on wealth, it's based on income???? And that is clearly skewed.
and, do you propose we base taxes on peoples wealth rather then income? example: I work hard, save a nice little nest egg paying taxes on everything I earn, and just because i didn't spend it yet, it gets taxed again? I think that would lead to serious problems. |
Actually, I mis-wrote that. It is based in income. I was not promoting the idea of taxing income that has already been taxed.
My point is, that if 20% of the income earners earn 86% of the income earned, then the same 20% paying 86% of the income tax doesn't seem unfair to me. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 01:27:29 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
After the Bush tax cuts (which actually skewed these numbers further towards the richest Americans - probably unintended):
The richest 1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax dollars
The richest 25% (people who make over $62K/year) of Americans pay 86% of the income tax dollars
The bottom 50% (half of the country) pay 3% of the income tax dollars
How much more skewed do we want to make it?
//www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html |
But if the richest 20% have over 86% of the wealth, shouldn't they pay 86% of the taxes?
//sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html |
income taxes are not based on wealth, it's based on income???? And that is clearly skewed.
and, do you propose we base taxes on peoples wealth rather then income? example: I work hard, save a nice little nest egg paying taxes on everything I earn, and just because i didn't spend it yet, it gets taxed again? I think that would lead to serious problems. |
Actually, I mis-wrote that. It is based in income. I was not promoting the idea of taxing income that has already been taxed.
My point is, that if 20% of the income earners earn 86% of the income earned, then the same 20% paying 86% of the income tax doesn't seem unfair to me. |
Actually, it's more like 5% of the population earning 90%. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 08:59:20 AM · #85 |
Your numbers may be wrong, please cite your source.
"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes."
//www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
|
|
|
|
03/14/2008 10:15:48 AM · #86 |
12,884 = 12 billion in spending - STOP EARMARKS
All 71 of the Senators (including Harry Reid) who do not get the message, should be remembered by their constituents and voted out of office when their next election is up. 12 Billion dollars fradulently stolen from the taxpayers treasury. If the earmark programs are so worthy, then pass legislation to make it so. Do not sneak it into another bill without a clear and purposeful declaration. Hillary needs to come clean on her yet to be spent earmarks. I have no doubt that she is proud of her set asides for New York as one of her spokepersons state. If true, then proudly release what all the eramarks are intended for so that voters can make up their own minds.
At least 29 Senators got the message and even Hillary is voting the right way - NOW. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 10:24:11 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Your numbers may be wrong, please cite your source.
"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes."
//www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html |
Much appreciate your assisting with my point on taxation. I am not sure if many of the posters here were aware of the $62,068 AGI paid 4 out of every 5 dollars or 86% of Federal Income tax. That is specifically my tax rant. 86% of taxes received already come from only 25% of taxpayers. No one (liberal or otherwise) needs any more of those 25%'s money. Stop the earmarks. Hold communities accountable. Spend within what you have. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 11:24:27 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by Flash:
No one (liberal or otherwise) needs any more of those 25%'s money. Stop the earmarks. Hold communities accountable. Spend within what you have. |
Add to that: Don't charge $150 Billion/year on credit to run a pointless war. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 11:31:18 AM · #89 |
Susan Estrich article
I rarely agree with Susan Estrich - however I do in this case. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 11:35:42 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Susan Estrich article
I rarely agree with Susan Estrich - however I do in this case. |
I'm constantly amazed by sites like FoxNews bashing Hilary, or right wingers bashing her. They should all be her biggest fans.
She's got something Obama doesn't seem to have. She could lose, even in the shadow of Bush's legacy. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 11:45:39 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Your numbers may be wrong, please cite your source.
"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes."
//www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html |
Much appreciate your assisting with my point on taxation. I am not sure if many of the posters here were aware of the $62,068 AGI paid 4 out of every 5 dollars or 86% of Federal Income tax. That is specifically my tax rant. 86% of taxes received already come from only 25% of taxpayers. No one (liberal or otherwise) needs any more of those 25%'s money. Stop the earmarks. Hold communities accountable. Spend within what you have. |
The problem is your math. You are comparing the percentage of tax payers (people) to the percentage of tax collected (dollars). Those do not corrolate directly. It sounds good, but it is flawed comparative math.
Compare the percentage of income earned (dollars) to the percentage of tax paid (dollars). Then you are comparing apples to apples, or in the case, dollars to dollars.
On the earmarks issue, it was put in the constitution by the founding fathers for a good reason. If all funding request had to have a majority vote of congress, nothing for a particular area would ever get funded. The fact that it's somewhat under the covers is by design. "You want your big popular bill to get approval? Then let's add this necessary but unpopular bill to it to get my vote and let's see how bad you want your bill passed" The founding fathers knew this. It is in there by design. That's why it is there.
Is it being abused, of course. End the abuse, but if you think congress will ever give up on the idea of earmarks, you don't understand the system or constitutional history very well.
Requiring disclosure to create outrage is probably an ill advised idea too. Although I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea of disclosure if the individual representative or senator wants to disclose. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 02:36:05 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
[quote=Flash] I'm constantly amazed by sites like FoxNews bashing Hilary, or right wingers bashing her. They should all be her biggest fans.
She's got something Obama doesn't seem to have. She could lose, even in the shadow of Bush's legacy. |
You may find this odd, but O'Rielly has actually been defending Hillary. More to your point, many conservatives do want Hillary to be the Democratic nominee - exactly for the reasons you mention. Even democrats will vote republican if Hillary heads the ticket - although some republican/independent women may vote for her. In my case, I simply think that Obama has infused an energy into politics - especially with younger college age voters - that is good for america. Do I want him to win? Not necessarily. But the inclusion of so many normally unincluded youngsters, outweighs the downside of his actually winning the presidency.
For me at least. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 02:39:03 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Gordon:
[quote=Flash] I'm constantly amazed by sites like FoxNews bashing Hilary, or right wingers bashing her. They should all be her biggest fans.
She's got something Obama doesn't seem to have. She could lose, even in the shadow of Bush's legacy. |
You may find this odd, but O'Rielly has actually been defending Hillary. |
No I don't find anything he does odd. It is just entertainment and ratings after all. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 07:18:53 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Your numbers may be wrong, please cite your source.
"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes."
//www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html |
Much appreciate your assisting with my point on taxation. I am not sure if many of the posters here were aware of the $62,068 AGI paid 4 out of every 5 dollars or 86% of Federal Income tax. That is specifically my tax rant. 86% of taxes received already come from only 25% of taxpayers. No one (liberal or otherwise) needs any more of those 25%'s money. Stop the earmarks. Hold communities accountable. Spend within what you have. |
The problem is your math. You are comparing the percentage of tax payers (people) to the percentage of tax collected (dollars). Those do not corrolate directly. It sounds good, but it is flawed comparative math.
Compare the percentage of income earned (dollars) to the percentage of tax paid (dollars). Then you are comparing apples to apples, or in the case, dollars to dollars. |
Ummmm, read my original note. top 25% earn 67% of the income, but pay 86% of the income taxes. top 1% earned 21% of the income, paid 39% of the income tax. Sorry, no matter how you want to look at it, the "rich" are paying more then there share already.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2008 07:52:04 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Your numbers may be wrong, please cite your source.
"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes."
//www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html |
Much appreciate your assisting with my point on taxation. I am not sure if many of the posters here were aware of the $62,068 AGI paid 4 out of every 5 dollars or 86% of Federal Income tax. That is specifically my tax rant. 86% of taxes received already come from only 25% of taxpayers. No one (liberal or otherwise) needs any more of those 25%'s money. Stop the earmarks. Hold communities accountable. Spend within what you have. |
The problem is your math. You are comparing the percentage of tax payers (people) to the percentage of tax collected (dollars). Those do not corrolate directly. It sounds good, but it is flawed comparative math.
Compare the percentage of income earned (dollars) to the percentage of tax paid (dollars). Then you are comparing apples to apples, or in the case, dollars to dollars. |
Ummmm, read my original note. top 25% earn 67% of the income, but pay 86% of the income taxes. top 1% earned 21% of the income, paid 39% of the income tax. Sorry, no matter how you want to look at it, the "rich" are paying more then there share already. |
Your link supports your numbers, and my link supports my numbers. I did a google search for mine. The paragraph you quoted didn't state the year, the previous paragraph referred to 2005, but I don't know if that is the same year for the second paragraph, could be though.
My point was that that is the way it should be to be truly fair. Comparing the percentage of people to the percentage of the taxes is simply an inaccurate and misleading way to state the case. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 08:39:52 PM · #96 |
if you check out my link it has several charts that has all the data from 1980 thru 2005. Your link seems to focus on wealth, not income. Although it does show some income numbers at the end.
My $.02 on this: I'm not complaining about where we are right now. However, there are people that think it needs to be even more skewed. And, the Senate today passed a bill to let the Bush cuts expire. Considering we are on the verge of a recession, I don't think that's a good idea. Recession means prices are going up, income is going down. Higher taxes only makes that worse!
|
|
|
|
03/14/2008 09:35:26 PM · #97 |
(disclaimer -- the following post does not necessarily reflect the views of the poster, the site, or anything photographic at all)
Bar Stool Economics (authorship disputed)
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right,"exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got
only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four
men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Message edited by author 2008-03-14 21:37:45. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 09:58:25 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by karmat:
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. |
Have you seen the tax rates overseas? |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 09:59:26 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by karmat:
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. |
Have you seen the tax rates overseas? |
No, but they do have some good booze over there:) |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 11:18:29 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by karmat:
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. |
My uncle moved from the UK to Switzerland some time in the 60's. He was paying 98% tax on the top end of his earnings. |
|
