NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh, wait, they already do:

"In other words: The Rich not only pay a disproportionate share of taxes, this share has been increasing since 1990.

According to the most recent figures available (2001) the Treasury Department reports:

1- Since 1990, virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of total taxes collected.

2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: The top 5 percent of taxpayers, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent).

Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected.

3-The tax cuts we received in 2001 and 2003 shifted an even larger share of the income tax burden to those with higher incomes.

How can this be, you ask, when the top tax rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent? (An 11.6 percent tax cut.)

Simple. Income tax rates at the lowest end of the scale were reduced by a much greater extent. For once thing, we replaced the 15-percent bracket with a 10-percent bracket for the first $14,000 in taxable income for a married couple (that's the 2003 figure, this goes up to $14,300 for 2004).** That's a one-third reduction (33 percent). So, for this tax year, instead of owing $2,145 on their first $14,300 of income, a couple will now pay $1,430. "
- Gail Buckner

Perhaps instead of raising taxes our government should spend money in a wiser fashion instead of on wars, and pet projects.

How is from 39.6 to 35% an 11.6% taxcut. Looks more like 4.6% to me...

.doh

How is from 39.6 to 35% an 11.6% taxcut. Looks more like 4.6% to me...

You fall for the trap of using simple math when looking at statistice.

I will try to help you - but only a little.

If you spent $39,600 for a new car, and I spent $35,000 for the very same car, my cost was 11.6% less than yours. Now project that onto a tax bill and you see the difference.

don't feel bad, it is a simple mistake to make.

Huh, and yet its the poor people who still have trouble paying the bills....

Perhaps instead of raising taxes our government should spend money in a wiser fashion instead of on wars, and pet projects.

There are plenty of programs that could be cut - very few should be paid by the fed. Science subsidies and military are among the few taht should be the responsibility of the Feds, most of the rest should fall on the states and local communities.

I say the first federal program to get the boot should be the NEA. What a friggin waste of capital that is.

Huh, and yet its the poor people who still have trouble paying the bills....

The poor don't pay tax. Quit trying to change the subject.

It depends on what your talking about.

4.6% is 11.6% of 39.6% but 4.6% is 4.6% of 100%. If your talking about how much of their tax cut was as a percentage of their former tax rate your right. They lost 11.6% of their tax burden from the income tax. Their tax rate was only cut by 4.6%.

It depends on what your talking about.

4.6% is 11.6% of 39.6% but 4.6% is 4.6% of 100%. If your talking about how much of their tax cut was as a percentage of their former tax rate your right. They lost 11.6% of their tax burden from the income tax. Their tax rate was only cut by 4.6%.

Don't confuse rate with cost. That is the basics. If you can't grasp that then I can't help you any more.

Huh, and yet its the poor people who still have trouble paying the bills....

The poor don't pay tax. Quit trying to change the subject.

No? I could have sword I filled in a tax form a few months ago.....

Huh, and yet its the poor people who still have trouble paying the bills....

The poor don't pay tax. Quit trying to change the subject.

No? I could have sword I filled in a tax form a few months ago.....

Nice try hijacker. Take your 'poor' ass (with a nice online connection and PC - tough to believe you're 'destitute' with that) somewhere else.

Stick to the subject. If you want to prove you're poor, post your 1040 online (being sure to blank address, ssn and other important stuff)

Till then, STFU and let everyone here talk about the subject at hand.

Oh, wait, they already do:

"In other words: The Rich not only pay a disproportionate share of taxes, this share has been increasing since 1990.

According to the most recent figures available (2001) the Treasury Department reports:

1- Since 1990, virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of total taxes collected.

2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: The top 5 percent of taxpayers, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent).

Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected.

3-The tax cuts we received in 2001 and 2003 shifted an even larger share of the income tax burden to those with higher incomes.

How can this be, you ask, when the top tax rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent? (An 11.6 percent tax cut.)

Simple. Income tax rates at the lowest end of the scale were reduced by a much greater extent. For once thing, we replaced the 15-percent bracket with a 10-percent bracket for the first $14,000 in taxable income for a married couple (that's the 2003 figure, this goes up to $14,300 for 2004).** That's a one-third reduction (33 percent). So, for this tax year, instead of owing $2,145 on their first $14,300 of income, a couple will now pay $1,430. "
- Gail Buckner
You seem to think that the rich guy is the VICTIM, such a shame....

FROM AN EARLIER THREAD I IMPORT THE FOLLOWING:

Folks, as is usual with any thread involving the topic of "tax cuts for the rich," this one goes on the false premise that says "the (so-called) rich aren't paying (their fair share/enough.)" This little file (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls), http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls, courtesy of the United States' Internal Revenue Service (you will need MS Excel to see it,) lays that claim to waste.

Notice that the "evil rich," the top 1 percent of taxpayers pays (as of 2001) 33.89 percent of the tax load, the top 5 percent pays 53.25 percent, the top 10 percent pays 64.89 percent, the top 25 percent pays 82.90 percent, and the top 50 percent pays a staggering 96.03 percent of the total income tax collected by the US Federal Government. For those of you who are still dumbfounded by these numbers, it means the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 3.94 percent of the income tax collection in the United States. Oh yes, I almost forgot, for 2002 and 2003, the share of the tax collection paid by the bottom 50 percent? It went down even further, while the top 1 percent paid more, due to loopholes being eliminated as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Also, the IRS collected MORE revenue in 2002 and 2003, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

Now, I don't know about any other countries out there, though I do know that some, like Sweden and France to name just two, tax oppressively in order to finance extravagant social programs. But to tell me "the rich (in the US) are not paying their fair share, and they get the lion's share of the tax cuts," when the FACTS and the FIGURES (no analysis needed from me, but I provided it free of charge anyway) show that claim to be a lie, is beyond preposterous.
Then perhaps you should consider this fact:

The distribution of wealth is far more highly concentrated in the hands of the very few than is the distribution of income.

Data from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by the Federal Reserve Board suggest that the richest 0.5 percent of families hold as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

For most households, the family home is the most important asset. Subtracting residential assets, the distribution of wealth becomes even more concentrated: the top 10 percent hold 79 percent of nonresidential wealth.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_038900_wealthandits.htm

Kinda deflates the argument about proper distribution of wealth versus taxes huh?

Oh, wait, they already do:

"In other words: The Rich not only pay a disproportionate share of taxes, this share has been increasing since 1990.

According to the most recent figures available (2001) the Treasury Department reports:

1- Since 1990, virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of total taxes collected.

2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: The top 5 percent of taxpayers, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent).

Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected.

3-The tax cuts we received in 2001 and 2003 shifted an even larger share of the income tax burden to those with higher incomes.

How can this be, you ask, when the top tax rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent? (An 11.6 percent tax cut.)

Simple. Income tax rates at the lowest end of the scale were reduced by a much greater extent. For once thing, we replaced the 15-percent bracket with a 10-percent bracket for the first $14,000 in taxable income for a married couple (that's the 2003 figure, this goes up to $14,300 for 2004).** That's a one-third reduction (33 percent). So, for this tax year, instead of owing $2,145 on their first $14,300 of income, a couple will now pay $1,430. "
- Gail Buckner
You seem to think that the rich guy is the VICTIM, such a shame....

FROM AN EARLIER THREAD I IMPORT THE FOLLOWING:

Folks, as is usual with any thread involving the topic of "tax cuts for the rich," this one goes on the false premise that says "the (so-called) rich aren't paying (their fair share/enough.)" This little file (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls), http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls, courtesy of the United States' Internal Revenue Service (you will need MS Excel to see it,) lays that claim to waste.

Notice that the "evil rich," the top 1 percent of taxpayers pays (as of 2001) 33.89 percent of the tax load, the top 5 percent pays 53.25 percent, the top 10 percent pays 64.89 percent, the top 25 percent pays 82.90 percent, and the top 50 percent pays a staggering 96.03 percent of the total income tax collected by the US Federal Government. For those of you who are still dumbfounded by these numbers, it means the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 3.94 percent of the income tax collection in the United States. Oh yes, I almost forgot, for 2002 and 2003, the share of the tax collection paid by the bottom 50 percent? It went down even further, while the top 1 percent paid more, due to loopholes being eliminated as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Also, the IRS collected MORE revenue in 2002 and 2003, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

Now, I don't know about any other countries out there, though I do know that some, like Sweden and France to name just two, tax oppressively in order to finance extravagant social programs. But to tell me "the rich (in the US) are not paying their fair share, and they get the lion's share of the tax cuts," when the FACTS and the FIGURES (no analysis needed from me, but I provided it free of charge anyway) show that claim to be a lie, is beyond preposterous.
Then perhaps you should consider this fact:

The distribution of wealth is far more highly concentrated in the hands of the very few than is the distribution of income.

Data from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by the Federal Reserve Board suggest that the richest 0.5 percent of families hold as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

For most households, the family home is the most important asset. Subtracting residential assets, the distribution of wealth becomes even more concentrated: the top 10 percent hold 79 percent of nonresidential wealth.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_038900_wealthandits.htm

Kinda deflates the argument about proper distribution of wealth versus taxes huh?


Do you want to talk about tax rates or wealth distribution? I thought this thread was about tax rates. Silly me.

I will point out that accourding to your numbers the top 10% hold 79% of wealth, and according to my numbers the top 5% of income earners (different than asset holders) paid over 50% of taxes. That seems to correspond fairly nice.

Huh, and yet its the poor people who still have trouble paying the bills....

The poor don't pay tax. Quit trying to change the subject.

No? I could have sword I filled in a tax form a few months ago.....

Nice try hijacker. Take your 'poor' ass (with a nice online connection and PC - tough to believe you're 'destitute' with that) somewhere else.

Stick to the subject. If you want to prove you're poor, post your 1040 online (being sure to blank address, ssn and other important stuff)

Till then, STFU and let everyone here talk about the subject at hand.

I beleive I am, and beleive me when I say the internet is the only luxury I have, the computer is a gift from my parents. I payed taxes, and I eat kraft dinner more often than I'd prefer. So...Ya...like, eat me, dick.

Huh, and yet its the poor people who still have trouble paying the bills....

The poor don't pay tax. Quit trying to change the subject.

No? I could have sword I filled in a tax form a few months ago.....

Nice try hijacker. Take your 'poor' ass (with a nice online connection and PC - tough to believe you're 'destitute' with that) somewhere else.

Stick to the subject. If you want to prove you're poor, post your 1040 online (being sure to blank address, ssn and other important stuff)

Till then, STFU and let everyone here talk about the subject at hand.

I beleive I am, and beleive me when I say the internet is the only luxury I have, the computer is a gift from my parents. I payed taxes, and I eat kraft dinner more often than I'd prefer. So...Ya...like, eat me, dick.
post your 1040 or the numbers from it. Till then you are really not buying any credibility with me.

Do you want to talk about tax rates or wealth distribution? I thought this thread was about tax rates. Silly me.
You are the one complaining about level of taxation. Now apply that to how badly the rich have fared under such oppressive taxation.

Huh, and yet its the poor people who still have trouble paying the bills....

The poor don't pay tax. Quit trying to change the subject.

No? I could have sword I filled in a tax form a few months ago.....

Nice try hijacker. Take your 'poor' ass (with a nice online connection and PC - tough to believe you're 'destitute' with that) somewhere else.

Stick to the subject. If you want to prove you're poor, post your 1040 online (being sure to blank address, ssn and other important stuff)

Till then, STFU and let everyone here talk about the subject at hand.

I beleive I am, and beleive me when I say the internet is the only luxury I have, the computer is a gift from my parents. I payed taxes, and I eat kraft dinner more often than I'd prefer. So...Ya...like, eat me, dick.
post your 1040 or the numbers from it. Till then you are really not buying any credibility with me.

Like I need your recognition :roll:

Huh, and yet its the poor people who still have trouble paying the bills....

The poor don't pay tax. Quit trying to change the subject.

No? I could have sword I filled in a tax form a few months ago.....

Nice try hijacker. Take your 'poor' ass (with a nice online connection and PC - tough to believe you're 'destitute' with that) somewhere else.

Stick to the subject. If you want to prove you're poor, post your 1040 online (being sure to blank address, ssn and other important stuff)

Till then, STFU and let everyone here talk about the subject at hand.

I beleive I am, and beleive me when I say the internet is the only luxury I have, the computer is a gift from my parents. I payed taxes, and I eat kraft dinner more often than I'd prefer. So...Ya...like, eat me, dick.

problem is, this is the internet.... and for all we know you're full of shit and are lying to us to make your argument seem justified

Huh, and yet its the poor people who still have trouble paying the bills....

The poor don't pay tax. Quit trying to change the subject.

No? I could have sword I filled in a tax form a few months ago.....

Nice try hijacker. Take your 'poor' ass (with a nice online connection and PC - tough to believe you're 'destitute' with that) somewhere else.

Stick to the subject. If you want to prove you're poor, post your 1040 online (being sure to blank address, ssn and other important stuff)

Till then, STFU and let everyone here talk about the subject at hand.

I beleive I am, and beleive me when I say the internet is the only luxury I have, the computer is a gift from my parents. I payed taxes, and I eat kraft dinner more often than I'd prefer. So...Ya...like, eat me, dick.
post your 1040 or the numbers from it. Till then you are really not buying any credibility with me.

Like I need your recognition :roll:
Put up or shut up. I'm calling your bluff.

1) I'm not posting ANY personal information on the net
2) I don't have a scanner

1) I'm not posting ANY personal information on the net
2) I don't have a scanner
Just ignore him.

Do you want to talk about tax rates or wealth distribution? I thought this thread was about tax rates. Silly me.
You are the one complaining about level of taxation. Now apply that to how badly the rich have fared under such oppressive taxation.

I edited my post, not sure if you saw my edit before you posted this.

I do believe that it is spectacular at the amount of wealth this nation is able to create. I also think progressive taxation is a good thing, however I think that 'rich' is too loosely and broadly defined. A couple earning $150/year is not rich (particularly in the larger cities) and should not be chastized for wanting a tax break. The argument that tax cuts 'help' anyone is preposterous. It implies a hand-out which it is not. I feel the government should not confiscate anything beyond what is absolutely necessary to provide basic services. Current spending is far above that.

I also think that the best thing that could happen to taxes would be the elimination of payroll deductions. If people were forced to send in a check each quarter they would take a substantially higher interest in how their money is spent.

1) I'm not posting ANY personal information on the net
2) I don't have a scanner

Nice excuse. I told you to forget or blackout the personal info. I even implied instead of a scan you only post the $ numbers - The 1040 has numbered lines if you don't know which numbers are germaine.

Primarily I want to see your Gross income, dediuctions and tax paid.

It was YOU who claimed to be 'poor', now I say proove it. I am certain you are not being honest about this - which would explain your reluctance to post the proof. Your bluff is called and confirmed.

The Rich make out like Bandits on Taxes. Conservatives who say they pay too much cite the Income tax. But Convieniently dont mention all the other taxes that the Rich save money on.

And lets not forget Tax havens.

The Rich make out like Bandits on Taxes. Conservatives who say they pay too much cite the Income tax. But Convieniently dont mention all the other taxes that the Rich save money on.

And lets not forget Tax havens.
Part of the problem is that many do not see that the "tax cuts" are weighted to favour the "rich" even more.

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_tax_dist.gif

And Bozzy quit Trolling or I'll get the mods onto ya.

The Rich make out like Bandits on Taxes. Conservatives who say they pay too much cite the Income tax. But Convieniently dont mention all the other taxes that the Rich save money on.

And lets not forget Tax havens.

Apparently you know much about tax havens name or describe one.

What other federal taxes do people pay other than income taxes that add up to anything substantial?

And Bozzy quit Trolling or I'll get the mods onto ya.

IF you call asking someone to produce facts to back up their claims trolling then I pity you.

Uhh. I dont think the Existance of Tax Havens is in doubt.
I know the Bahamas is one. And Estate Tax. Bush cut it. It could've made a trillion dollars in 20 years. Whih would have come in handy since right now america is 5 fucking trillion in the hole when it was 5 trillion in the clear when he came to office. And I dont wanna hear anything aboot Sept. 11 or the Tech bubble. Split up that's Twice the National turnover every year.

You dont lose that much without bad economic policy

And Bozzy quit Trolling or I'll get the mods onto ya.

IF you call asking someone to produce facts to back up their claims trolling then I pity you.

Being Argumentative, snappy, and on the Verge on flaming fits my definition well enough.

The Rich make out like Bandits on Taxes. Conservatives who say they pay too much cite the Income tax. But Convieniently dont mention all the other taxes that the Rich save money on.

And lets not forget Tax havens.
Part of the problem is that many do not see that the "tax cuts" are weighted to favour the "rich" even more.

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_tax_dist.gif

Hmm, I checked their site and couldn't find anything to back up this chart. I did find this:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=220

same source but paints a vastly different picture. I just love exposing propoganda!

Back up? ITS RIGHT THERE! that is the back up. When you write things you dont repeat yourself.

God, we already saw that chart already, Canuck. At least post new false things rather than recycle them. :roll:

Uhh. I dont think the Existance of Tax Havens is in doubt.
I know the Bahamas is one. And Estate Tax. Bush cut it. It could've made a trillion dollars in 20 years. Whih would have come in handy since right now america is 5 f--- trillion in the hole when it was 5 trillion in the clear when he came to office. And I dont wanna hear anything aboot Sept. 11 or the Tech bubble. Split up that's Twice the National turnover every year.

You dont lose that much without bad economic policy

Umm, for anyone to benefit from Estate Tax cuts someone has to die - not a very favorable tax haven.

Bahamas are outside US juristiction - maybe we should invade? Don't confuse tax avoidance (illegal) with tax haven (legal). Also don't forget you need to point out the restrictions on the different types of havens (like living outside the US)

Back up? ITS RIGHT THERE! that is the back up. When you write things you dont repeat yourself.

Sorry NA, that back up was not directed at you, but at BI. (holding two conversations at once online is tricky) The backup one I sent you included a link to different info from the same source claimed on your chart - implying that your chart is contrived (ie - not true)

The Rich make out like Bandits on Taxes. Conservatives who say they pay too much cite the Income tax. But Convieniently dont mention all the other taxes that the Rich save money on.

And lets not forget Tax havens.
Part of the problem is that many do not see that the "tax cuts" are weighted to favour the "rich" even more.

http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_tax_dist.gif

Hmm, I checked their site and couldn't find anything to back up this chart. I did find this:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=220

same source but paints a vastly different picture. I just love exposing propoganda!
Ummmm the chart was based on the same web site you just posted

Urban Brookings Tax Policy Centre

Nether the less. The Tax man is still being Ripped off. And Most billionaires tend to be geezers. They didnt earn that much money when they were young.

And a quick checkover your link shows it talks about the 2001 tax cuts. And im not sure because I'm lazy but is that Income tax or overall tax. I assume its income. Because its talking about income and tax burdens.

Ummmm the chart was based on the same web site you just posted

Urban Brookings Tax Policy Centre

Exacftly my point. The chart claims to use info from that site - but upon closer inspection it has nothing in common with the report from Brookings. In other words - it is incorrect.

God, we already saw that chart already, Canuck. At least post new false things rather than recycle them. :roll:
Prove it false.

And Bozzy quit Trolling or I'll get the mods onto ya.

IF you call asking someone to produce facts to back up their claims trolling then I pity you.

Being Argumentative, snappy, and on the Verge on flaming fits my definition well enough.

Um, arguments are the whole point of this forum. If you want to go where everyone agrees with you this is not the place.

God, we already saw that chart already, Canuck. At least post new false things rather than recycle them. :roll:
Prove it false.
I already did, follow the link from my earlier post.

Actually, I made a big long post on it in the other thread you posted the graph on. Essentially, it isn't totally false but extremely misleading.

Edit : To Canuck, not Boz

Nether the less. The Tax man is still being Ripped off. And Most billionaires tend to be geezers. They didnt earn that much money when they were young.

And a quick checkover your link shows it talks about the 2001 tax cuts. And im not sure because I'm lazy but is that Income tax or overall tax. I assume its income. Because its talking about income and tax burdens.

Not sure if I follow you on this one. Do you suggest that 'geezers' somehow are less entitled to anything everyone else is?

Also, Billionairre 'geezers' do pay more tax. That was made clear in the first post here. Not sure what your point is.

Also, most people tend to make more money as they get older. Do you intend to suggest that is bad?

they Pay more Income Tax. But they Save on many other taxes. Like they, or at least their inheritancees save big time on the Estate tax. And avoid a fair bit of taxes through Tax havens. I said This And I dont intend to go around in circles.

but not becuse Redistribution didnt work It was because they were a bunch of corrupt bastards.

Ruff, Ruff. GRRRRarrgghh

The Forum is Melting. MELTING. Melting into the SUN!!!1

Forget about banning because of flaming, whoever screwed up the display is the one that needs mod attention

It was cottonisking. I noticed to bottom was weird before I posted.

DO NOT BLAME ME1 All is well.

they Pay more Income Tax. But they Save on many other taxes. Like they, or at least their inheritancees save big time on the Estate tax. And avoid a fair bit of taxes through Tax havens. I said This And I dont intend to go around in circles.

So then, if they 'save' alot on estate tax other pay more on estate tax? Stillnot sure of your point.

You use 'tax havens' as an all inclusive circle without any clear definition. I won't accept that. Sorry.

but not becuse Redistribution didnt work It was because they were a bunch of corrupt bastards.
Hmm, if each time it was tried it resulted in 'corrupt bastards' shouldn't that tell you something?

Ruff, Ruff. GRRRRarrgghh
LOL! :lol:

Thanks for making me laugh!

Perhaps instead of raising taxes our government should spend money in a wiser fashion instead of on wars, and pet projects.

pet projects?...you mean like welfare, SSI, NPR, the NEA?..those pet projects?

NPR is hardly comprable to social Wellfare. Which wouldnt need extra money spent on it If Bush Hadnt Buggered the Surplus.

NPR is hardly comprable to social Wellfare. Which wouldnt need extra money spent on it If Bush Hadnt Buggered the Surplus.

I don't think we should spend anything on NPR...let the market decide if it can make it or not.

NPR is hardly comprable to social Wellfare. Which wouldnt need extra money spent on it If Bush Hadnt Buggered the Surplus.

I don't think we should spend anything on NPR...let the market decide if it can make it or not.

Do you *really* think that people would rather pay to hear boring facts instead of entertaining lies?

2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: The top 5 percent of taxpayers, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent).

Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected.

a better way to look at it is not straight income, because that doesn't tell you anything about how their actual lives are affected by tax, but by share of the wealth. the top 5% own something like 60% of the total wealth, with the top 1% owning something on the order of 40% of the total wealth. effectively their share of taxes is tiny compared to their share or the wealth. iirc, if the rich were to pay as much tax as those at the median income level (as a % of their total wealth), tax rates for the rich would need to triple.

NPR is hardly comprable to social Wellfare. Which wouldnt need extra money spent on it If Bush Hadnt Buggered the Surplus.

I don't think we should spend anything on NPR...let the market decide if it can make it or not.

Do you *really* think that people would rather pay to hear boring facts instead of entertaining lies?
You don't pay for radio stations.

*wiping tears from my eyes and blowing my nose with a loud honk*

oh those poorpoor rich people, im glad SOMEONE is looking our for them. they have such a hard time taking care of themselves

maybe we should each send a rich person $10 just to tide them over on this tax thing

republican conservatives think everyone should subsidize the rich and they scapegoat the poor who have NO POWER at all for economic conditions that corporate welfare has created

The Rich make out like Bandits on Taxes. Conservatives who say they pay too much cite the Income tax. But Convieniently dont mention all the other taxes that the Rich save money on.
It's horrible that someone could say something like "The Rich make out like Bandits on Taxes." The taxman is the bandit, not the rich. It's like saying: "John made out like a bandit when he avoided getting robbed." No one is "saving" money by not paying any tax. They are just keeping what is rightfully theirs.

The Rich make out like Bandits on Taxes. Conservatives who say they pay too much cite the Income tax. But Convieniently dont mention all the other taxes that the Rich save money on.
It's horrible that someone could say something like "The Rich make out like Bandits on Taxes." The taxman is the bandit, not the rich. It's like saying: "John made out like a bandit when he avoided getting robbed." No one is "saving" money by not paying any tax. They are just keeping what is rightfully theirs.we're all just sick of the way conservatives make the middle class pay rich peoples taxes--that adds insult to injury--when will the GOP end their war against working people? If you wanna grovel before the rich do it on your own dime

we're all just sick of the way conservatives make the middle class pay rich peoples taxes--that adds insult to injury--when will the GOP end their war against working people? If you wanna grovel before the rich do it on your own dime
I don't want the middle class to pay taxes either. If the tax system is skewed against the middle class and not the rich, then I guess scrapping the whole thing would be a way to help the middle class and hurt the rich, right?

we're all just sick of the way conservatives make the middle class pay rich peoples taxes--that adds insult to injury--when will the GOP end their war against working people? If you wanna grovel before the rich do it on your own dime
I don't want the middle class to pay taxes either. If the tax system is skewed against the middle class and not the rich, then I guess scrapping the whole thing would be a way to help the middle class and hurt the rich, right?everyone hates taxes but its the only system we got so as long as they have to exist the burden should be carried by the rich (since they need to reinvest in the system that made them rich) and everyone else should pay a nominal fee

2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: The top 5 percent of taxpayers, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent).

Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected.

a better way to look at it is not straight income, because that doesn't tell you anything about how their actual lives are affected by tax, but by share of the wealth. the top 5% own something like 60% of the total wealth, with the top 1% owning something on the order of 40% of the total wealth. effectively their share of taxes is tiny compared to their share or the wealth. iirc, if the rich were to pay as much tax as those at the median income level (as a % of their total wealth), tax rates for the rich would need to triple.

Do you not believe that everyone who is able should share in the cost of government - or do you believe that government should simply confiscate wealth as they deem necessary to operate.

I for one want to share in the cost of government. I don not want to live in a government funded by a select few (talk about potential for a power grab!). If I do not share in the cost then I have no right to share in any of the pride of citizenship. If I only benefit from and do not contribute to then I am a freeloader - a moocher. The tax I pay may be small compared to Bill Gates, but it is what I can afford and I am proud to pay it.

According to your own data my contribution is tiny compared to the wealthy. Is it fair to reduce mine without first reducing theirs?

If you want to compare income against wealth then you are stuck in an apples/oranges issue (land rich/cash poor people for example). Even if you did the top 1% control 40% of wealth (your unconfirmed numbers) and the top earners pay 30% of taxes - that is roughly parity. It would be foolish to deduce that it implies a 300% tax increase is in order for those earners.

Even worse is the people who moan and cry about the surplus/deficit with not even a mention of excessive government waste/pork/spending. It is like complaining about a high airconditioning bill while all of the doors and windows are wide open every day to the house in the summer - and then expecting their rich neighbor to foot the bill for them!

To balance the budget not even one governent program would require a cut. Not one. Simply freeze spending at current levels for three years and we would have the single largest budget surplus ever.

Perhaps instead of raising taxes our government should spend money in a wiser fashion instead of on wars, and pet projects.

pet projects?...you mean like welfare, SSI, NPR, the NEA?..those pet projects?

SSI is not funded by income tax - non-issue here.

NPR and NEA are absolutely a waste of money, as is public television. Ever wonder why there is not a government sponsored newspaper? Then why should there be a government sponsored radio or television station?

But you also fail to mention the pork and wase within even legitimate public enterprise like roads or defence. Why is it there? Because there is never a shortage of money to fund it - that's why. Simply freeze spending at current levels and the budget balances itself.

Perhaps instead of raising taxes our government should spend money in a wiser fashion instead of on wars, and pet projects.

pet projects?...you mean like welfare, SSI, NPR, the NEA?..those pet projects?

SSI is not funded by income tax - non-issue here.

NPR and NEA are absolutely a waste of money, as is public television. Ever wonder why there is not a government sponsored newspaper? Then why should there be a government sponsored radio or television station?

But you also fail to mention the pork and wase within even legitimate public enterprise like roads or defence. Why is it there? Because there is never a shortage of money to fund it - that's why. Simply freeze spending at current levels and the budget balances itself.the NEA makes up less then one penny of Govt money --its funds are so microscopic it shouldnt even be on the radar screen as for NPR it should be expanded to counter the lies and propaganda of the corporate media which is a direct threat to american democracy--theres tons and tons of legit pork in the budget that can be eliminated without any pain at all but why cut essential things that people need to live?

Perhaps instead of raising taxes our government should spend money in a wiser fashion instead of on wars, and pet projects.

pet projects?...you mean like welfare, SSI, NPR, the NEA?..those pet projects?

SSI is not funded by income tax - non-issue here.

NPR and NEA are absolutely a waste of money, as is public television. Ever wonder why there is not a government sponsored newspaper? Then why should there be a government sponsored radio or television station?

But you also fail to mention the pork and wase within even legitimate public enterprise like roads or defence. Why is it there? Because there is never a shortage of money to fund it - that's why. Simply freeze spending at current levels and the budget balances itself.the NEA makes up less then one penny of Govt money --its funds are so microscopic it shouldnt even be on the radar screen as for NPR it should be expanded to counter the lies and propaganda of the corporate media which is a direct threat to american democracy--theres tons and tons of legit pork in the budget that can be eliminated without any pain at all but why cut essential things that people need to live?

So you want a government mouthpiece in the form of NPR?..this is a market based society...if it has any viable niche to fill NPR can make it on its own...if not..then it doesn't need to be on the air...We have no government television nor newspaper...we need no government radio

...as for NPR it should be expanded to counter the lies and propaganda of the corporate media which is a direct threat to american democracy--theres tons and tons of legit pork in the budget that can be eliminated without any pain at all but why cut essential things that people need to live?

So you would rather get your news from the government than an independent source?

There is a place where you can do that - it's called "China".

Perhaps instead of raising taxes our government should spend money in a wiser fashion instead of on wars, and pet projects.

pet projects?...you mean like welfare, SSI, NPR, the NEA?..those pet projects?

SSI is not funded by income tax - non-issue here.

NPR and NEA are absolutely a waste of money, as is public television. Ever wonder why there is not a government sponsored newspaper? Then why should there be a government sponsored radio or television station?

But you also fail to mention the pork and wase within even legitimate public enterprise like roads or defence. Why is it there? Because there is never a shortage of money to fund it - that's why. Simply freeze spending at current levels and the budget balances itself.the NEA makes up less then one penny of Govt money --its funds are so microscopic it shouldnt even be on the radar screen as for NPR it should be expanded to counter the lies and propaganda of the corporate media which is a direct threat to american democracy--theres tons and tons of legit pork in the budget that can be eliminated without any pain at all but why cut essential things that people need to live?

So you want a government mouthpiece in the form of NPR?..this is a market based society...if it has any viable niche to fill NPR can make it on its own...if not..then it doesn't need to be on the air...We have no government television nor newspaper...we need no government radiothe airwaves belong to THE PEOPLE not corporate maggots...NPR needs to be funded by the govt and expanded because democracy cannot exist in a system where corporate monopolies are allowed to rape the truth unchallenged

...as for NPR it should be expanded to counter the lies and propaganda of the corporate media which is a direct threat to american democracy--theres tons and tons of legit pork in the budget that can be eliminated without any pain at all but why cut essential things that people need to live?

So you would rather get your news from the government than an independent source?

There is a place where you can do that - it's called "China".evil corporations are hardly an "independent source" at all--they lie for the Govt to get sweetheart deals on legislation that matters to them--when three corporate giants own 99.9% of the media in america and all speak with one voice that is clearly far worse then a publicly owned station that doesnt have to worry about the bottom line or other hidden agendas

evil corporations are hardly an "independent source" at all--they lie for the Govt to get sweetheart deals on legislation that matters to them--when three corporate giants own 99.9% of the media in america and all speak with one voice that is clearly far worse then a publicly owned station that doesnt have to worry about the bottom line or other hidden agendas


LOL - so you'd rather get your lies directly from the government? ROFLMAO!

So, where were your 'evil corporations' during Watergate and why didn't they do their masters bidding? Maybe that was part of their 'hidden agenda'?

LMAO.

Really, I think The Peoples Republic of China is the perfect place for you. No inconvenient 'facts' aside from whatever the government decides you need to know. No trouble with 'evil' news corporations there!

bump

The Rich make out like Bandits on Taxes. Conservatives who say they pay too much cite the Income tax. But Convieniently dont mention all the other taxes that the Rich save money on.

And lets not forget Tax havens.
Part of the problem is that many do not see that the "tax cuts" are weighted to favour the "rich" even more.


http://jec.senate.gov/democrats/charts/bush_tax_dist.gif

Hmm, I checked their site and couldn't find anything to back up this chart. I did find this:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=220

same source but paints a vastly different picture. I just love exposing propoganda!
To quote you, "I just love exposing propoganda!".

Well I just love exposing propaganda that suggests that the "truth" that I posted is not in fact the "truth"!

From the very web site that YOU suggested, I was able to find the chart that was referenced on the above chart:

http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/TMTemplate.cfm

http://taxpolicycenter.org/TaxModel/tmdb/Content/GIF/T03-0193.gif

You will notice that 200,000 people, making $1,000,000 will get a "tax cut" of $127,000 for a total of $25 Billion

384,000 people making $500,000 to $1,000,000 will get a "tax cut" of $24,146 for a total of $9.2 Billion

2,300,000 people making $200,000 to $500,000 will get a "tax cut" of $7,430 for a total of $17 Billion

9,615,000 people making $100,000 to $200,000 will get a "tax cut" of $3,825 for a total of $36.7 Billion

9,954,000 people making $75,000 to $100,000 will get a "tax cut" of $2,640 for a total of $26.2 Billion

18,227,000 people making $50,000 to $75,000 will get a "tax cut" of $1,445 for a total of $26.3 Billion

10,550,000 people making $40,000 to $50,000 will get a "tax cut" of $1,018 for a total of $10.7 Billion

13,625,000 people making $30,000 to $40,000 will get a "tax cut" of $827 for a total of $11.2 Billion

18,557,000 people making $20,000 to $30,000 will get a "tax cut" of $650 for a total of $12 Billion

23,239,000 people making $10,000 to $20,000 will get a "tax cut" of $312 for a total of $7.2 Billion

33,461,000 people making less than $10,000 will get a "tax cut" of $8 for a total of $267 Million

Total Number of Taxpayers = 141,030,000 of which, 88,882,000 in bottom 4 tax brackets (63%) will share $30.7 Billion and 584,000 in top 2 tax brackets (0.004%) will share $34.2 Billion

Mind boggling huh????? 8) 8) 8)

God, we already saw that chart already, Canuck. At least post new false things rather than recycle them. :roll:
You wanted new so I gave you new.....look up ^^^^^ :lol:

evil corporations are hardly an "independent source" at all--they lie for the Govt to get sweetheart deals on legislation that matters to them--when three corporate giants own 99.9% of the media in america and all speak with one voice that is clearly far worse then a publicly owned station that doesnt have to worry about the bottom line or other hidden agendas


LOL - so you'd rather get your lies directly from the government? ROFLMAO!

So, where were your 'evil corporations' during Watergate and why didn't they do their masters bidding? Maybe that was part of their 'hidden agenda'?

LMAO.

Really, I think The Peoples Republic of China is the perfect place for you. No inconvenient 'facts' aside from whatever the government decides you need to know. No trouble with 'evil' news corporations there!because Im not a communist if anything I fight the communism of corporate monopolies

republican conservatives think everyone should subsidize the rich and they scapegoat the poor who have NO POWER at all for economic conditions that corporate welfare has created
If the people look at the charts I posted, they might realize how sweet the "tax cuts" are for the smallest segment of the population.....the $$RICH$$

Let me break this down for you all. We have the following possibilities for how tax could be reformed and their most likely effects:

1. The rich continue to pay less money, the middle class and poor continue to pay more.
America reaches the point where there are no more middle class or poor people, because they all become destitute. Then the rich pay for everything, as they will be the only people with any money at all.

2. The rich get a tax hike, the middle class and poor get a tax cut.
Well, this is under the assumption that the rich somehow can't donate enough money to the party of their choice to get their taxes cut, and we aren't dealing in what-if situations.

republican conservatives think everyone should subsidize the rich and they scapegoat the poor who have NO POWER at all for economic conditions that corporate welfare has created
If the people look at the charts I posted, they might realize how sweet the "tax cuts" are for the smallest segment of the population.....the $$RICH$$

Great job getting the figures.

IT would be a bit ridiculous to expect the people with MAGI (which is not the same as gross income) under $20,000 to reap a $24 billion dollar tax cut when as a group they barely pay that much in taxes at all.

Also, you neglect to mention just how much tax you feel IS suitable for those in the upper tax brackets to pay. 1/4th of their income is not enough for you? How much is? Do you think the entire cost of government should be borne by them? Would you want to live in a nation funded only by the top 5% of wage earners?

[quote=MKULTRA]republican conservatives think everyone should subsidize the rich and they scapegoat the poor who have NO POWER at all for economic conditions that corporate welfare has created
If the people look at the charts I posted, they might realize how sweet the "tax cuts" are for the smallest segment of the population.....the $$RICH$$

Great job getting the figures.

IT would be a bit ridiculous to expect the people with MAGI (which is not the same as gross income) under $20,000 to reap a $24 billion dollar tax cut when as a group they barely pay that much in taxes at all.
I don't know where you are getting your figures from, but from the above chart, 40% of American taxpayers make $20,000 or less per year and will share in a "tax cut" of $7.5 Billion

Also, you neglect to mention just how much tax you feel IS suitable for those in the upper tax brackets to pay. 1/4th of their income is not enough for you? How much is?
Right now it is 30% and from what I understand, under Kerry's proposal, that rate would be frozen.

Do you think the entire cost of government should be borne by them?
That is not what is happening.

Would you want to live in a nation funded only by the top 5% of wage earners?
As far as I can see, the US is funded by 141,000,000 taxpayers. Some pay more tax than others.

Interesting note: 53% of American taxpayers make $30,000 or less. Perhaps the wage rates are too low?

2. The rich get a tax hike, the middle class and poor get a tax cut.
Well, this is under the assumption that the rich somehow can't donate enough money to the party of their choice to get their taxes cut, and we aren't dealing in what-if situations.
another issue with raising taxes for the richest is that they can move most easily. If the tax rate was increased they could just leave the country which means that the goverment would miss out on the taxes collected from them (which is alot) and the economy may also suffer.
This was shown when in the 60s in the UK the highest tax rate was increased to 97.5% and many rich people left causing economic problems, which is presumably why it is at 40% now.

They dont even need to move because of Teh Havens.

Oh, wait, they already do:

"In other words: The Rich not only pay a disproportionate share of taxes, this share has been increasing since 1990.

According to the most recent figures available (2001) the Treasury Department reports:

1- Since 1990, virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of total taxes collected.

2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: The top 5 percent of taxpayers, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent).

Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected.

3-The tax cuts we received in 2001 and 2003 shifted an even larger share of the income tax burden to those with higher incomes.

How can this be, you ask, when the top tax rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent? (An 11.6 percent tax cut.)

Simple. Income tax rates at the lowest end of the scale were reduced by a much greater extent. For once thing, we replaced the 15-percent bracket with a 10-percent bracket for the first $14,000 in taxable income for a married couple (that's the 2003 figure, this goes up to $14,300 for 2004).** That's a one-third reduction (33 percent). So, for this tax year, instead of owing $2,145 on their first $14,300 of income, a couple will now pay $1,430. "
- Gail Buckner
You seem to think that the rich guy is the VICTIM, such a shame....

FROM AN EARLIER THREAD I IMPORT THE FOLLOWING:

Folks, as is usual with any thread involving the topic of "tax cuts for the rich," this one goes on the false premise that says "the (so-called) rich aren't paying (their fair share/enough.)" This little file (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls), http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls, courtesy of the United States' Internal Revenue Service (you will need MS Excel to see it,) lays that claim to waste.

Notice that the "evil rich," the top 1 percent of taxpayers pays (as of 2001) 33.89 percent of the tax load, the top 5 percent pays 53.25 percent, the top 10 percent pays 64.89 percent, the top 25 percent pays 82.90 percent, and the top 50 percent pays a staggering 96.03 percent of the total income tax collected by the US Federal Government. For those of you who are still dumbfounded by these numbers, it means the bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 3.94 percent of the income tax collection in the United States. Oh yes, I almost forgot, for 2002 and 2003, the share of the tax collection paid by the bottom 50 percent? It went down even further, while the top 1 percent paid more, due to loopholes being eliminated as a result of the Bush tax cuts. Also, the IRS collected MORE revenue in 2002 and 2003, AFTER the Bush tax cuts.

Now, I don't know about any other countries out there, though I do know that some, like Sweden and France to name just two, tax oppressively in order to finance extravagant social programs. But to tell me "the rich (in the US) are not paying their fair share, and they get the lion's share of the tax cuts," when the FACTS and the FIGURES (no analysis needed from me, but I provided it free of charge anyway) show that claim to be a lie, is beyond preposterous.
Then perhaps you should consider this fact:

The distribution of wealth is far more highly concentrated in the hands of the very few than is the distribution of income.

Data from the 1989 Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by the Federal Reserve Board suggest that the richest 0.5 percent of families hold as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

For most households, the family home is the most important asset. Subtracting residential assets, the distribution of wealth becomes even more concentrated: the top 10 percent hold 79 percent of nonresidential wealth.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_038900_wealthandits.htm

Kinda deflates the argument about proper distribution of wealth versus taxes huh?
It's sort of a moot point when one considers where that money is. Most people think that money is stored in a giant bank vault, never seeing the light of day. The reality is a bit more complex.
Most of the money is invested into securities. This translates into profit for the issuer, and thus, gives him more capital to spend. It's technically the income of these rich people, but it has a dual use as the income of corporate America, and keeps the economy going.

2. The rich get a tax hike, the middle class and poor get a tax cut.
Well, this is under the assumption that the rich somehow can't donate enough money to the party of their choice to get their taxes cut, and we aren't dealing in what-if situations.
another issue with raising taxes for the richest is that they can move most easily. If the tax rate was increased they could just leave the country which means that the goverment would miss out on the taxes collected from them (which is alot) and the economy may also suffer.
This was shown when in the 60s in the UK the highest tax rate was increased to 97.5% and many rich people left causing economic problems, which is presumably why it is at 40% now.

So then, having rich people is good for the economy according to you. Better keep them around rather than run them off with high taxes.

Taxes do not impoverish Rich people. Are like, arguing from some Debaters handbook?

I don't know where you are getting your figures from, but from the above chart, 40% of American taxpayers make $20,000 or less per year and will share in a "tax cut" of $7.5 Billion

First, you are using MAGI, not gross inome - learn the difference - it is substantial. Second a tax cut of $7 bil is generous considering that as a group they barely paid $25bil. That is almost a 30% reduction in tax costs. Even with a 100% reduction in tax costs the total reduction would barely add up to the reduction in other brackets because OTHER BRACKETS PAY SUBSTANTIALLY MORED DOLLARS IN TAX. (caps for emplasis, not shout)


Also, you neglect to mention just how much tax you feel IS suitable for those in the upper tax brackets to pay. 1/4th of their income is not enough for you? How much is?
Right now it is 30% and from what I understand, under Kerry's proposal, that rate would be frozen.

Do you think the entire cost of government should be borne by them?
That is not what is happening.
Actually, During Clinton the highest tax rate was raised to 39.6% - so apparently you actually do support tax cuts.




Would you want to live in a nation funded only by the top 5% of wage earners?
As far as I can see, the US is funded by 141,000,000 taxpayers. Some pay more tax than others.

As noted in the first post, 5% of TAXPAYORS (and not all citizens pay tax) pay half of total income taxes collected. Raise taxes on the highest payors and that will shrink to an even smaller, unrepresentative, number. A government paid for by the rich will eventually serve the hand that feeds them.


Interesting note: 53% of American taxpayers make $30,000 or less. Perhaps the wage rates are too low?[/quote]

I suspect again that you are using MAGI instead of gross income. Go here for the real numbers:
http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032003/perinc/new01_001.htm

You will find you are off by about $5000.

I don't know where you are getting your figures from, but from the above chart, 40% of American taxpayers make $20,000 or less per year and will share in a "tax cut" of $7.5 Billion

First, you are using MAGI, not gross inome - learn the difference - it is substantial. Second a tax cut of $7 bil is generous considering that as a group they barely paid $25bil. That is almost a 30% reduction in tax costs. Even with a 100% reduction in tax costs the total reduction would barely add up to the reduction in other brackets because OTHER BRACKETS PAY SUBSTANTIALLY MORED DOLLARS IN TAX. (caps for emplasis, not shout)
What are you talking about? The tax table I used said AGI in top left corner. Form # T03-0193.

A tax cut of $7.5 Billion works out to an average of $134 for the 56,000,000 taxpayers who make $20,000 or less. It really is not that generous, but the bonus here is that, that group will spend EVERY penny of the “tax cut”. That will be good for the economy.

The downside of this Bush “tax cut” proposal, is that the $34 Billion windfall that will go to the 584,000 people in the top 0.4 % will more than likely end up either in the bank, buying expensive foreign automobiles, foreign vacations, foreign property investments, or offshore holdings. Conservatives tend to do conservative things, like NOT spending their money. So the trickle down theory stalls because of this group.

This “trickle down” theory was tried before by Reagan and it failed miserably. It was even mentioned in an earlier thread that Reagan enacted the largest “tax cut” in US history, and then reversed it later by enacting the largest “TAX INCREASE” in US history.

The other downside, is the fact that revenues will be outstripped by expenses, meaning that the US will have to borrow to provide the necessary “tax cuts”, thereby increasing the deficit, the National debt, and the amount of debt servicing fees. This makes absolutely no sense to continue to download the National Debt onto your children and grandchildren.

Of course the other option is to cut spending programs? The fact that poverty has actually increased during Bush’s term, less people have access to health care programs, and cuts are even being made to veteran’s assistance, does it make sense to go this route?


Also, you neglect to mention just how much tax you feel IS suitable for those in the upper tax brackets to pay. 1/4th of their income is not enough for you? How much is?
Right now it is 30% and from what I understand, under Kerry's proposal, that rate would be frozen.

Do you think the entire cost of government should be borne by them?
That is not what is happening.

Actually, During Clinton the highest tax rate was raised to 39.6% - so apparently you actually do support tax cuts.
I support tax cuts if they are going to have a net positive impact for the majority of workers. Padding the pockets of those that control most of the wealth makes zero sense, and the people need to wake up and smell the coffee.



Would you want to live in a nation funded only by the top 5% of wage earners?
As far as I can see, the US is funded by 141,000,000 taxpayers. Some pay more tax than others.

As noted in the first post, 5% of TAXPAYORS (and not all citizens pay tax) pay half of total income taxes collected. Raise taxes on the highest payors and that will shrink to an even smaller, unrepresentative, number. A government paid for by the rich will eventually serve the hand that feeds them.
I don’t buy your figures on this one. It would appear that the majority of income tax revenue would come from the true middle class workers, in other words the 50,000,000 workers who make between $30,000 and $100,000. They would also be the workers that have less ability to take advantage of tax shelters.


Interesting note: 53% of American taxpayers make $30,000 or less. Perhaps the wage rates are too low?

I suspect again that you are using MAGI instead of gross income. Go here for the real numbers:
http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032003/perinc/new01_001.htm

You will find you are off by about $5000.
Again, I am using the AGI file stipulated above.

NPR is hardly comprable to social Wellfare. Which wouldnt need extra money spent on it If Bush Hadnt Buggered the Surplus.

I don't think we should spend anything on NPR...let the market decide if it can make it or not.

Do you *really* think that people would rather pay to hear boring facts instead of entertaining lies?
You don't pay for radio stations.
Well, maybe you don't, but I do. NPR runs from corporate and viewer funding. You pay for private radio stations by buying their products and funding their advertising.

I got this in an email

Dinner & Taxes

I was having lunch with one of my favorite clients last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts.
'"I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the retired college instructor declared, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair.'"
"But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back."
I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meager argument. So I said to him, "let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand."
"Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59."
The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until 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 meal by $20." Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.
Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"
"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? 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."
Then, the nine men surrounded the tenth man (the richest one, paying the most) and beat him up. The next night the richest man didn't show up for dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!
"And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Pretty simple

When you say rich, how rich do you mean?

When you say rich, how rich do you mean?
Anyone richer than them, usually.

When you say rich, how rich do you mean?
Anyone richer than them, usually.

quite. all this talk of "the rich people" generally comes from suburban middle class college kids who think that they aren't "rich" because there is somebody with one more car than they have. Newsflash, people: the poorest person in America is still considered rich to much of the world. if you really feel that rich people aren't paying their share then that means you need YOUR taxes raised, and you should be required to give 30% of your post-tax income to charities for people who are actually poor.

"struggling American families" also seem to get brought up a lot, to justify stealing money from people who have it to give it to irresponsible middle class families who had more kids than they can support and now think they are "poor" because they can't afford braces for little Brittany. boo freaking hoo. buy a compact car instead of that Range Rover and you'll save enough just on gas. stop paying for cable, two phone lines, and DSL, and maybe you'll have a case about OTHER people being filthy rich. you don't deserve somebody else's money, no matter how much you want it, so stop asking and go earn money on your own.

Oh, wait, they already do:

"In other words: The Rich not only pay a disproportionate share of taxes, this share has been increasing since 1990.

According to the most recent figures available (2001) the Treasury Department reports:

1- Since 1990, virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of total taxes collected.

2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: The top 5 percent of taxpayers, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent).

Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected.

3-The tax cuts we received in 2001 and 2003 shifted an even larger share of the income tax burden to those with higher incomes.

How can this be, you ask, when the top tax rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent? (An 11.6 percent tax cut.)

Simple. Income tax rates at the lowest end of the scale were reduced by a much greater extent. For once thing, we replaced the 15-percent bracket with a 10-percent bracket for the first $14,000 in taxable income for a married couple (that's the 2003 figure, this goes up to $14,300 for 2004).** That's a one-third reduction (33 percent). So, for this tax year, instead of owing $2,145 on their first $14,300 of income, a couple will now pay $1,430. "
- Gail BucknerYes, the rich pay their fair share. And quite often the fair share of thirty or forty other people. And the water doesn't come out of their taps thirty or forty times hotter and the fire department doesn't get to their house thirty or forty times faster. But, somehow, I'm not going to be crying for them and the unfair way they're treated, because they still earn more money. They still have more money than the average person, and frankly, I can't think of anything I can do with ten million dollars that I can't do with six million and give the rest to the government.

Geesh...now we want to tax people who become successful or are intelligent enough to know what to do with their money...oh that's just great...

oh..and in case anyone suggests..I'm middle-class..working my way up to upper middle class..and I want as much of my money as I've [b]earned[b/] given back to me..I'm for a flat tax rate..period..

And I'm saavy enough to know what to do with my money that I do save, it's not my problem if someone who has less money then me doesn't do their financial homework.

Oh, wait, they already do:

"In other words: The Rich not only pay a disproportionate share of taxes, this share has been increasing since 1990.

According to the most recent figures available (2001) the Treasury Department reports:

1- Since 1990, virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of total taxes collected.

2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: The top 5 percent of taxpayers, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent).

Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected.

3-The tax cuts we received in 2001 and 2003 shifted an even larger share of the income tax burden to those with higher incomes.

How can this be, you ask, when the top tax rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent? (An 11.6 percent tax cut.)

Simple. Income tax rates at the lowest end of the scale were reduced by a much greater extent. For once thing, we replaced the 15-percent bracket with a 10-percent bracket for the first $14,000 in taxable income for a married couple (that's the 2003 figure, this goes up to $14,300 for 2004).** That's a one-third reduction (33 percent). So, for this tax year, instead of owing $2,145 on their first $14,300 of income, a couple will now pay $1,430. "
- Gail BucknerYes, the rich pay their fair share. And quite often the fair share of thirty or forty other people. And the water doesn't come out of their taps thirty or forty times hotter and the fire department doesn't get to their house thirty or forty times faster. But, somehow, I'm not going to be crying for them and the unfair way they're treated, because they still earn more money. They still have more money than the average person, and frankly, I can't think of anything I can do with ten million dollars that I can't do with six million and give the rest to the government.

You could invest the four million in industry creating wealth and jobs for people. A far better use than paying kids to murder Iraqis or paying police to harass minorities (or giving it away to people to do nothing all day). But then, it's more moral just to steal the money and give it to people to "help" them (until next week when they're back in the same position) than to give them a job and actually end their misery, right?

Oh, wait, they already do:

"In other words: The Rich not only pay a disproportionate share of taxes, this share has been increasing since 1990.

According to the most recent figures available (2001) the Treasury Department reports:

1- Since 1990, virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of total taxes collected.

2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: The top 5 percent of taxpayers, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent).

Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected.

3-The tax cuts we received in 2001 and 2003 shifted an even larger share of the income tax burden to those with higher incomes.

How can this be, you ask, when the top tax rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent? (An 11.6 percent tax cut.)

Simple. Income tax rates at the lowest end of the scale were reduced by a much greater extent. For once thing, we replaced the 15-percent bracket with a 10-percent bracket for the first $14,000 in taxable income for a married couple (that's the 2003 figure, this goes up to $14,300 for 2004).** That's a one-third reduction (33 percent). So, for this tax year, instead of owing $2,145 on their first $14,300 of income, a couple will now pay $1,430. "
- Gail BucknerYes, the rich pay their fair share. And quite often the fair share of thirty or forty other people. And the water doesn't come out of their taps thirty or forty times hotter and the fire department doesn't get to their house thirty or forty times faster. But, somehow, I'm not going to be crying for them and the unfair way they're treated, because they still earn more money. They still have more money than the average person, and frankly, I can't think of anything I can do with ten million dollars that I can't do with six million and give the rest to the government.

You could invest the four million in industry creating wealth and jobs for people. A far better use than paying kids to murder Iraqis or paying police to harass minorities (or giving it away to people to do nothing all day). But then, it's more moral just to steal the money and give it to people to "help" them (until next week when they're back in the same position) than to give them a job and actually end their misery, right?Yeah, but what if you don't invest it in industry? What if it just sits in that hole in your mattress y-know? Its not doing anything, its not being productive. I won't argue that there aren't better ways the government could use the money it collects, but I don't believe that people have a right to be wealthy. Especially when that money can be taken to ensure that other people stay alive and don't have to live on the streets.

Oh, wait, they already do:

"In other words: The Rich not only pay a disproportionate share of taxes, this share has been increasing since 1990.

According to the most recent figures available (2001) the Treasury Department reports:

1- Since 1990, virtually ALL of the income tax collected by the federal government has come from taxpayers who fall in the top 50 percent in terms of income. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of total taxes collected.

2-Most of this tax revenue comes from a very select group: The top 5 percent of taxpayers, defined as those who earned about a third (32 percent) of all national income, paid more than half of all individual income taxes (53.3 percent).

Those in the top 1 percent in terms of income, paid more than 30 percent of the total amount of income tax collected.

3-The tax cuts we received in 2001 and 2003 shifted an even larger share of the income tax burden to those with higher incomes.

How can this be, you ask, when the top tax rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent? (An 11.6 percent tax cut.)

Simple. Income tax rates at the lowest end of the scale were reduced by a much greater extent. For once thing, we replaced the 15-percent bracket with a 10-percent bracket for the first $14,000 in taxable income for a married couple (that's the 2003 figure, this goes up to $14,300 for 2004).** That's a one-third reduction (33 percent). So, for this tax year, instead of owing $2,145 on their first $14,300 of income, a couple will now pay $1,430. "
- Gail BucknerYes, the rich pay their fair share. And quite often the fair share of thirty or forty other people. And the water doesn't come out of their taps thirty or forty times hotter and the fire department doesn't get to their house thirty or forty times faster. But, somehow, I'm not going to be crying for them and the unfair way they're treated, because they still earn more money. They still have more money than the average person, and frankly, I can't think of anything I can do with ten million dollars that I can't do with six million and give the rest to the government.

You could invest the four million in industry creating wealth and jobs for people. A far better use than paying kids to murder Iraqis or paying police to harass minorities (or giving it away to people to do nothing all day). But then, it's more moral just to steal the money and give it to people to "help" them (until next week when they're back in the same position) than to give them a job and actually end their misery, right?Yeah, but what if you don't invest it in industry? What if it just sits in that hole in your mattress y-know? Its not doing anything, its not being productive. I won't argue that there aren't better ways the government could use the money it collects, but I don't believe that people have a right to be wealthy. Especially when that money can be taken to ensure that other people stay alive and don't have to live on the streets.
You realise how much misery it would cause, especially for the poor, if you started stealing money (taxing) from the rich very much? The conspiracy theorist in me has figured out why the greedy govt teaches baking instead of economics in its schools.

So then, having rich people is good for the economy according to you. Better keep them around rather than run them off with high taxes.
No closer to Stfcam's example, if they leave cause the texes get higher you won't be able to tax them so everyone else will end up paying more to make up the differance.

Well..it's a good thing I've read some of these posts..I never want to get wealthier then what I am..because if I do...then it's open hunting season on the successful....I'll just be content to be nothing more then the entry-level worker bee..which apparently is the most desired position according to some people....I won't work to be supervisor..because obviously I would have done it on the backs of my co-workers and thus no longer work for a living..but off of the living of others..and I sure as hell won't venture out on my own to start my own business..because then I'd be the monolithic evil entity known as the capitalist fat cat exploiting my workers.

Well..it's a good thing I've read some of these posts..I never want to get wealthier then what I am..because if I do...then it's open hunting season on the successful....I'll just be content to be nothing more then the entry-level worker bee..which apparently is the most desired position according to some people....I won't work to be supervisor..because obviously I would have done it on the backs of my co-workers and thus no longer work for a living..but off of the living of others..and I sure as hell won't venture out on my own to start my own business..because then I'd be the monolithic evil entity known as the capitalist fat cat exploiting my workers.

and don't you even THINK about buying a nicer home if (godforbid) your ill-conceived success should bring you some disposable income. you had better give that money away, before you give somebody the idea that you are good enough at your job to warrant some sort of material reward for your labor! obviously any such reward would simply be ill-gotten gains from exploiting the less fortunate, since you couldn't possibly ever be better than somebody else at what you do, and therefore couldn't ever deserve to have more money or a nicer car or a bigger house. you are just as low and helpless as everyone else, and don't deserve any different than what the lowest members of society have.

don't try, or we'll come and get you. don't make money, or we'll come and take it. don't be talented, or we'll make you harness your efforts to the needs of those who don't have talent. repeat after me: I AM A FACELESS, SELFLESS DRONE. MY EFFORTS BELONG TO OTHERS, NOT TO ME. ALL HAIL THE GLORIOUS WORKERS REVOLUTION.

Well..it's a good thing I've read some of these posts..I never want to get wealthier then what I am..because if I do...then it's open hunting season on the successful....I'll just be content to be nothing more then the entry-level worker bee..which apparently is the most desired position according to some people....I won't work to be supervisor..because obviously I would have done it on the backs of my co-workers and thus no longer work for a living..but off of the living of others..and I sure as hell won't venture out on my own to start my own business..because then I'd be the monolithic evil entity known as the capitalist fat cat exploiting my workers.

and don't you even THINK about buying a nicer home if (godforbid) your ill-conceived success should bring you some disposable income. you had better give that money away, before you give somebody the idea that you are good enough at your job to warrant some sort of material reward for your labor! obviously any such reward would simply be ill-gotten gains from exploiting the less fortunate, since you couldn't possibly ever be better than somebody else at what you do, and therefore couldn't ever deserve to have more money or a nicer car or a bigger house. you are just as low and helpless as everyone else, and don't deserve any different than what the lowest members of society have.

don't try, or we'll come and get you. don't make money, or we'll come and take it. don't be talented, or we'll make you harness your efforts to the needs of those who don't have talent. repeat after me: I AM A FACELESS, SELFLESS DRONE. MY EFFORTS BELONG TO OTHERS, NOT TO ME. ALL HAIL THE GLORIOUS WORKERS REVOLUTION.

We are Borg..you will be assimilated..all for the collective...no one is any better then anyone else..no one is any smarter...any more talented... if you try to better yourself..then expect to get demoted from a higher position back to garbage scow just to show I am no better then anyone else.

You realise how much misery it would cause, especially for the poor, if you started stealing money (taxing) from the rich very much? The conspiracy theorist in me has figured out why the greedy govt teaches baking instead of economics in its schools.I can assure you that I'm not in the mood for a trickle-down economics lecture. Poorer people benefit from taxing the rich more when the money goes into public schools and goes into helathcare