NationStates Jolt Archive

Have you seen that ad McCain is putting out saying that Obama is intending to raise taxes? OF COURSE he is, for the top 5%, who will be like "Oh no! Now we have to give more money to the government so the less fortunate are given an equal chance!" The ad makes it seem like he's raising taxes for lower and lower-middle class citizens. That kind of manipulation pisses me off.

Wait, lemme say it for you:
Welcome to politics

And that is why you don't vote for McSame.

Oh yeah, I totally wasn't gonna do that anyways. (even if I legally could, I think my bro can vote for Obama, what's voting age limit? He's 18)

We may have exceeded our American Election Thread Threshold...

Have you seen that ad McCain is putting out saying that Obama is intending to raise taxes? OF COURSE he is, for the top 5%, who will be like "OMGZORS? I hab to pay more moneyz to teh guvermint now?!?!?1? Now I can't get 200 new yahts! Onli 199!" (Yes they spell like that) The ad makes it seem like he's raising taxes for lower and lower-middle class citizens. That kind of manipulation pisses me off.

Wait, lemme say it for you:
Welcome to politics

Actually the top 10% of Americans earn 39% of all pretax income and yet pay 71% of all taxes. Do a little research before you just repeat the same tired tripe.

Source (http://www.hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/6771827.html)

Oh yeah, I totally wasn't gonna do that anyways. (even if I legally could, I think my bro can vote for Obama, what's voting age limit? He's 18)
Dude...

How stale and old Family Guy has gotten, despite a good start and good potential?

How stale and old Family Guy has gotten, despite a good start and good potential?

Very? Gave up on it, I moved on to Mr. Colbert.

Actually the top 10% of Americans earn 39% of all pretax income and yet pay 71% of all taxes. Do a little research before you just repeat the same tired tripe.

Source (http://www.hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/6771827.html)

These data suggest that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of families. The wealthiest 1 percent of families owns roughly 34.3% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of families owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of the population owns way less than 1%.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

What? The top 10% owns over 71% of the net worth of the country? Hmm, what's that? They pay 71% of our nation's tax? I think someone else needs to do their research.

I'll have to wait till tomorrow to read what you have to say to that, it's 1:14 and I'm tired.

Very? Gave up on it, I moved on to Mr. Colbert.

Eh, it still mildly amuses me much of the time. But the rest of the time I sit there wondering why I haven't changed the channel.
The reason being that there's nothing better to watch, usually.

Dude...

Pretty much.

Have you seen that ad McCain is putting out saying that Obama is intending to raise taxes? OF COURSE he is, for the top 5%, who will be like "OMGZORS? I hab to pay more moneyz to teh guvermint now?!?!?1? Now I can't get 200 new yahts! Onli 199!" (Yes they spell like that) The ad makes it seem like he's raising taxes for lower and lower-middle class citizens. That kind of manipulation pisses me off.

Wait, lemme say it for you:
Welcome to politics

Yea, I stopped reading when you started using txt speak. When you stop talking like a drooling babbling 1st grader who is "special", and actually present a coherance, arciulated, and thought out argument, then I will pay attention to your postings.

Very? Gave up on it, I moved on to Mr. Colbert.

And that is supposed to be better?

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

What? The top 10% owns over 71% of the net worth of the country? Hmm, what's that? They pay 71% of our nation's tax? I think someone else needs to do their research.

I'll have to wait till tomorrow to read what you have to say to that, it's 1:14 and I'm tired.

Wealth and income are not the same thing junior.

Net worth includes such things are real estate, stocks, and trust funds. These are all things that would obviously be concentrated in the hands of the richest people. However, just because you have a high net worth doesn't mean you are rich. You can be dead broke if all your worth is tied up in nonliquid assets such as real estate or closely held stocks.

If the Congressional Budget Office isn't good enough for you, these links agree with my position (though the actual numbers do vary, the general conclusions are consistent):
Tax Policy Center (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/Content/PDF/T07-0272.pdf)
Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html)

Try finding something relevant this time.

A worn Synchronizer.

Letting out the clutch too soon?

Repeating stupid claims only serves to entrench them - there are clinical tests to prove this, hell, you only need to look at religion.

So stop writing these 'Oh my god look what the McCain camp is claiming' threads and concentrate on 'Oh my god look what McCain is proposing' threads.

Remember to always add that he's probably senile.

Repeating stupid claims only serves to entrench them - there are clinical tests to prove this, hell, you only need to look at religion.

So stop writing these 'Oh my god look what the McCain camp is claiming' threads and concentrate on 'Oh my god look what McCain is proposing' threads.

Remember to always add that he's probably senile.

And that Obama has no experience.

Oh Lord, do I have to vote for either of them? *Looks at Libertarian candidate. Shudders.*

And that Obama has no experience.

Oh Lord, do I have to vote for either of them? *Looks at Libertarian candidate. Shudders.*

I wouldn't even bother to defend that claim, it's ridiculous, what experience has John McCain had of being president, none whatsoever, so they're both equal really.

Yet it's almost undeniable that John McCain is mentally unbalanced, his temper alone, do we really want that finger on the button?

Christ, given his old ears, he might mishear Putin and go nuts...

Putin: Well my old friend...
McCain: You call me 'round the bend'!? Right, take that Moscow...

KABOOM!

I wouldn't even bother to defend that claim, it's ridiculous, what experience has John McCain had of being president, none whatsoever, so they're both equal really.

Yet it's almost undeniable that John McCain is mentally unbalanced, his temper alone, do we really want that finger on the button?

Christ, given his old ears, he might mishear Putin and go nuts...

Putin: Well my old friend...
McCain: You call me 'round the bend'!? Right, take that Moscow...

KABOOM!

If George W. McCain were elected, that mind-shattering sound everyone hears is Osama Bin-Ladin having a world-rocking orgasm.

Christ, given his old ears, he might mishear Putin and go nuts...

Putin: Well my old friend...
McCain: You call me 'round the bend'!? Right, take that Moscow...

KABOOM!

:D hahaha, not that I agree with you but that was funny.

If George W. McCain were elected, that mind-shattering sound everyone hears is Osama Bin-Ladin having a world-rocking orgasm.

Hang on did I miss something? When did the Republicans change their candidate?

:D hahaha, not that I agree with you but that was funny.

Perhaps but this isn't funny...

Recently on other foreign issues, McCain seems ever more confused. He repeatedly mixed up Sunni and Shiite, he forgot that Iran is a Shiite country, he claimed Iran was training Sunni terrorists and hosted Al Qaida terrorists, and he was lucky to have Sen. Lieberman nearby to correct him during his recent embarrassing trip.

He called the Czech Republic "Czechoslovakia." He thought that Pakistan and Iraq share a common border and he said the Vladimir Putin was the current president of Germany. All of this in just the last three months. There are many more examples, even more frightening and dismaying.

You can look them all up, much like the Republicans, I feel no need to back up my claims, unlike them, mine are based in reality, unlike John McCain.

And that Obama has no experience.

Oh Lord, do I have to vote for either of them? *Looks at Libertarian candidate. Shudders.*

Let me tell you this: with McCain, you're bound to get similar policies to Bush. I know you don't like those.

And Obama is actually not all that bad. He's not perfect--far from perfect in many respects--but he's a hell of a lot better.

(Also, it's highly likely that Colorado will be going for Obama, so you may wish to simply pinch your nose and vote for him. You won't be disappointed, trust me.)

Also, if muck-spreading is allowed...

Is Sarah Palin the mother of Trig or is the mother, in fact, her 16 year old daughter?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137

Personally this wouldn't make a whit of difference to me under normal circumstances, I can understand a mother looking to protect her daughter.

I'm sure if this properly hits the media, that's how it will be played, a dutiful mother.

If true, how do people think it will turn?

Also, if muck-spreading is allowed...

Is Sarah Palin the mother of Trig or is the mother, in fact, her 16 year old daughter?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137

Personally this wouldn't make a whit of difference to me under normal circumstances, I can understand a mother looking to protect her daughter.

I'm sure if this properly hits the media, that's how it will be played, a dutiful mother.

If true, how do people think it will turn?
Ah man, I had a page from stumble about this a while ago and decided to let it slide. Apparently the picture of the daughter's 'bump' is actually from 2006. There was some other thing that pointed to the story being bullshit but I can't remember what it is, all I remember is eventually stumbling away thinking, "Bullshit." Far more concerned with things like teaching creationism than if her 16 year old had a baby or not. But I was unconvinced.

Ah man, I had a page from stumble about this a while ago and decided to let it slide. Apparently the picture of the daughter's 'bump' is actually from 2006. There was some other thing that pointed to the story being bullshit but I can't remember what it is, all I remember is eventually stumbling away thinking, "Bullshit." Far more concerned with things like teaching creationism than if her 16 year old had a baby or not. But I was unconvinced.

Yep, I think even Daily Kos has admitted it's untrue, I'll go shoot myself :)

It had a 30th August dateline so I assumed it was recent and not debunked.

EDIT: Just went to shoot myself, I missed, that's how inept I am...

...oh well.

Perhaps but this isn't funny...



You can look them all up, much like the Republicans, I feel no need to back up my claims, unlike them, mine are based in reality, unlike John McCain.

I'm not saying you are making them up, mate and your little script of McCain and Putin really was funny, I was laughing quite loud. John McCain isn't apart of reality?

But of course the fact that Obama talked about how he had visted 57 states is a different matter and perfectly alright isn't it Barry.

I'm not saying you are making them up, mate and your little script of McCain and Putin really was funny, I was laughing quite loud.

But of course the fact that Obama talked about how he had visted 57 states is a different matter and perfectly alright isn't it Barry.

It surely is, I'm blinded by dislike of the Republicans winning again, as evidenced by my posts above.

I just...

Oddly enough it's because of a genuine like of America and sadness at its current standing.

:(

Yep, I think even Daily Kos has admitted it's untrue, I'll go shoot myself :)

It had a 30th August dateline so I assumed it was recent and not debunked.

EDIT: Just went to shoot myself, I missed, that's how inept I am...

...oh well.
I'm more scandalized by the names of her kids, like Trig, Track, and Bristol.

I'm more scandalized by the names of her kids, like Trig, Track, and Bristol.

Same, what the hell, but I suppose it will appeal to the lower class'

It surely is, I'm blinded by dislike of the Republicans winning again, as evidenced by my posts above.

I just...

Oddly enough it's because of a genuine like of America and sadness at its current standing.

:(

I know you are, that's why I can't really take a lot of what you say as reasonable statements because really it won't matter what they do or say you will still hate them and say how bad it is. No offence mate, but I really don't take anybody seriously no matter what side they are on even on my own side when they have a blindness.

So stop writing these 'Oh my god look what the McCain camp is claiming' threads and concentrate on 'Oh my god look what McCain is proposing' threads.
Problem is, McCain ain't proposing much at all. He's doing what every Republican has done over the past 3-4 decades of attacking and smearing the opposition rather than presenting anything positive himself.
Sad thing is, this strategy has worked extremely well.

Actually the top 10% of Americans earn 39% of all pretax income and yet pay 71% of all taxes. Do a little research before you just repeat the same tired tripe.

Source (http://www.hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/6771827.html)

Good thats good then.

I know you are, that's why I can't really take a lot of what you say as reasonable statements because really it won't matter what they do or say you will still hate them and say how bad it is. No offence mate, but I really don't take anybody seriously no matter what side they are on even on my own side when they have a blindness.

In my defense, I'm a particularly grumpy bear today, I like to think I'm generally fairly objective..

...

The spaghetti was really old and it's a fairly humid climate and I had food poisoning. It was almost like being high so I suspect a fungus of some type on the spaghetti, I also had chronic sweats but I fell short of throwing up.

So I didn't really sleep last night, I feel hollow and tired today.

Still, I'll drop character attacks, senile old John McCain doesn't really deserve it the poor old thing :)

Wealth and income are not the same thing junior.

Net worth includes such things are real estate, stocks, and trust funds. These are all things that would obviously be concentrated in the hands of the richest people. However, just because you have a high net worth doesn't mean you are rich. You can be dead broke if all your worth is tied up in nonliquid assets such as real estate or closely held stocks.

If the Congressional Budget Office isn't good enough for you, these links agree with my position (though the actual numbers do vary, the general conclusions are consistent):
Tax Policy Center (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/Content/PDF/T07-0272.pdf)
Tax Foundation (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html)

Try finding something relevant this time.

I'm sorry, but if you would read the OP, I clearly implied (oxy-moron there?) that he was using it as a scare tactic to draw votes from lower to lower-middle class citizens. They would be the bottom 80% ($35,000-75,000 yearly income) So what I'm saying is that he is attempting to draw votes from 240,000,000 people for something that will affect 15,000,000 people. You talk of relevance? Your entire arguement was irrelevent to my point.

Yea, I stopped reading when you started using txt speak. When you stop talking like a drooling babbling 1st grader who is "special", and actually present a coherance, arciulated, and thought out argument, then I will pay attention to your postings.
You wanna know what else grinds my gears? When people attack me for no reason.

Why thank you for being a total ass to me for trying to lighten the mood with a joke.

You see, what I was trying to do there was say, "What if rich people were those idiots" But since I explained it it's not funny anymore.

You wanna know what else grinds my gears? When people attack me for no reason.

Why thank you for being a total ass to me for trying to lighten the mood with a joke.

You see, what I was trying to do there was say, "What if rich people were those idiots" But since I explained it it's not funny anymore.
Well it looked a lot like you were trying to work out some childish jealousy and anger against those people with more money than you. Of course, that wouldn't be the case at all? I mean, obviously your statements were based on the firm and well-researched belief that anyone owning over $250,000 a year owns a fleet of yachts.

Well it looked a lot like you were trying to work out some childish jealousy and anger against those people with more money than you. Of course, that wouldn't be the case at all? I mean, obviously your statements were based on the firm and well-researched belief that anyone owning over $250,000 a year owns a fleet of yachts.

I'm not saying this is your opinion but I find many people earning good money tend to use this rationale, that those less well-off are simply jealous and 'hate the fact we work hard to earn our wage'.

Yet what percentage of those earning over $250K a year come from a background of poverty?

Very few I'd say.

I'm happy to give a leg up to those less fortunate, I don't buy into the idea that they're all dole scroungers and wasters and, even if they are, I accept that their choices were more limited.

It's something I don't tend to understand, that giving up some of my wage to better society is in someway a bad thing, liberal, practically communist.

Seriously, why is healthcare not universal?

The most common excuse I hear is 'it's my right to choose'.

Sure, you can still choose to opt for private, why not contribute though?

*by 'you' I mean a general attitude rather than specifically you*

I'd certainly say I was from a privileged background so I know many of the 'you's' I talk about.

Well it looked a lot like you were trying to work out some childish jealousy and anger against those people with more money than you. Of course, that wouldn't be the case at all? I mean, obviously your statements were based on the firm and well-researched belief that anyone owning over $250,000 a year owns a fleet of yachts.

1. Quite frankly, I'm proud of those that managed (even some generations ago) to come up with some idea that earned them a shitload of money. Not so much the people that did good in school and got a good education and got a good job, because I can (and hopefully will) do that (even though I'm prolly gonna settle for a crappy high school math teacher job.)

2. My family is well-off enough, (well enough off? (probably within the top 30%)) and I had a newspaper route (not fun, unless you're in good shape, which I wasn't) for a couple of years (when I was like 12-14) which was the main source of my income, until I got accused of breaking into a car by a couple of idiots who found nothing missing and the door locked (go figure :rolleyes: ) but that earned me enough money to buy everything I had wanted at the time (well, not rediculous things like a pool and hot tub and stuff like that) and now I basically get no money, (getting a job in a couple of months.) So yes, I may be subconsciously upset that I can hardly afford anything at all, but I had no intention of immaturely attacking those more wealthy than me. It was seriously just a joke.

And btw, I know I'm supposed to be pissed when people use powerfully biting sarcasm on me, but I can't help but think of the size of our navy when some of those 15,000,000 people donated like 100 yachts each (and yes I realize they'd be practically useless, but the enemies would probably shit themselves if they saw 1,500,000,000 ships floating towards them (they'd be on auto-pilot of course)).

Use the clutch.

I'm sorry, but if you would read the OP, I clearly implied (oxy-moron there?) that he was using it as a scare tactic to draw votes from lower to lower-middle class citizens. They would be the bottom 80% ($35,000-75,000 yearly income) So what I'm saying is that he is attempting to draw votes from 240,000,000 people for something that will affect 15,000,000 people. You talk of relevance? Your entire arguement was irrelevent to my point.

Maybe if your OP was written in something vaguely resembling English rather than dribbling nonsense, your "point" would come across.

Maybe if your OP was written in something vaguely resembling English rather than dribbling nonsense, your "point" would come across.

Bwahahahaha!

What about this, is unclear for you then?

'Have you seen that ad McCain is putting out saying that Obama is intending to raise taxes? OF COURSE he is, for the top 5%, who will be like "OMGZORS? I hab to pay more moneyz to teh guvermint now?!?!?1? Now I can't get 200 new yahts! Onli 199!" (Yes they spell like that) The ad makes it seem like he's raising taxes for lower and lower-middle class citizens. That kind of manipulation pisses me off.

Wait, lemme say it for you:
Welcome to politics'

Seems straight forward enough to me.

Maybe if your OP was written in something vaguely resembling English rather than dribbling nonsense, your "point" would come across.

You want me to edit it? You happy now?

Wow, a politician who distorts the truth, it must shock you that such things occur.

Wow, a politician who distorts the truth, it must shock you that such things occur.

Wow, I guess you can't read. I edited for you and everything. Read the OP again, yeah, that last sentance, what was it?
"Wait, let me say it for you:
Welcome to politics"
I think I got that right.

The ad makes it seem like he's raising taxes for lower and lower-middle class citizens.

He will raise their taxes, I can guarantee he will do that if elected.

Bwahahahaha!

What about this, is unclear for you then?

OP here

Seems straight forward enough to me.

I can't tell, was that sarcasm? Personally I thought it was relatively straightforward except for that one part.

Problem is, McCain ain't proposing much at all. He's doing what every Republican has done over the past 3-4 decades of attacking and smearing the opposition rather than presenting anything positive himself.
Sad thing is, this strategy has worked extremely well.

And the other side is.... More of the SOS of politics. A pox on all of them.

In my defense, I'm a particularly grumpy bear today, I like to think I'm generally fairly objective..

Here have some cookies and milk, You'll feel better in the morning. :fluffle:

Actually the top 10% of Americans earn 39% of all pretax income and yet pay 71% of all taxes. Do a little research before you just repeat the same tired tripe.

Source (http://www.hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/6771827.html)

Which is irrelevent, and wrong.

First: They (according to your source) pay 71% of all INCOME taxes, not all taxes. (You accuse others of not doing their research, but didn't even read your own source?)

Second: Declaring tht they "earned 39 percent of the pretax income" is actually somewhat meaningless. What does 'earned' mean? What - then - does that say about UN-earned income. What is the parallel between TOTAL pretax income, and total income tax burder?

Third: Pretax income figures are easy to doctor. All you have to do, is change the nature of the income, how and when it will be taxed, etc. And - what you're referring to is the income that is accounted for by mechanisms accounted within this country. Any 'earned income' that is moving straight to an offshore account might not even show up in such a study.

He will raise their taxes, I can guarantee he will do that if elected.

And McCain will personally kick down your door and shit on your breakfast table, I can guarantee he will do that if elected.

And McCain will personally kick down your door and shit on your breakfast table, I can guarantee he will do that if elected.

Now that's the kind of leadership America needs. Shock and awe doesn't even begin to describe it.

There's an interesting graphic (http://www.npr.org/templates/common/image_enlargement.php?imageResId=91606693)from the Brookings Institute. There seems to be a pattern...
In fairness to John McCain, I don't think this counts the Bush tax cuts, which would make the total tax cuts from 2000 to his for lower income families larger, and the average McCain tax cut is greater. (By average I assume they mean "mean.") On the other hand, the same thing would happen to Obama's cuts.

Now that's the kind of leadership America needs. Shock and awe doesn't even begin to describe it.

Actually, you're right. If they started putting that as a campaign promise, I'd support it.

He will raise their taxes, I can guarantee he will do that if elected.

Proof? Or is this more of the "teh ebil black man wants to stealz my money!!!" comments?

Actually, you're right. If they started putting that as a campaign promise, I'd support it.

Yeah, but that means he's just continuing Bush-era economic policies...do you want more of the same?

:hail:Which is irrelevent, and wrong.

First: They (according to your source) pay 71% of all INCOME taxes, not all taxes. (You accuse others of not doing their research, but didn't even read your own source?)

Second: Declaring tht they "earned 39 percent of the pretax income" is actually somewhat meaningless. What does 'earned' mean? What - then - does that say about UN-earned income. What is the parallel between TOTAL pretax income, and total income tax burder?

Third: Pretax income figures are easy to doctor. All you have to do, is change the nature of the income, how and when it will be taxed, etc. And - what you're referring to is the income that is accounted for by mechanisms accounted within this country. Any 'earned income' that is moving straight to an offshore account might not even show up in such a study.

Thank you. ('bout damn time someone helped me:hail:)

Proof? Or is this more of the "teh ebil black man wants to stealz my money!!!" comments?

The stupid thing is - any candidate elected any time in the next couple of decades is probably raising SOME taxes, to make up for the way this latest White House pissed money like it was water.

If McCain gets in, he'll almost certainly have to raise taxes. But, if we phrase it right, we can pretend it's just Dems who do that.

The current Republican party hasn't got a whole lot of leverage left, in real terms. The last few years have seen them rape the fundamental 'Republican' values (like Small Government? Seriously? Check out the last 8 years for small government...) to the point where the old 'Democrats will tax-and-spend' mantra is about all that's really left.

And you'd have to be pretty fundamentalist about it not to acknowledge that even tax-and-spend is better than spend-and-spend.

Yeah, but that means he's just continuing Bush-era economic policies...do you want more of the same?

Hey, if the Bush regime had admitted upfront "we're gonna rape the economy, the Constitution, and you - in that order", I'd have had a lot more respect for it.

This whole 8 years of 'in your ass? what dick?' crap is just lame.

Actually, you're right. If they started putting that as a campaign promise, I'd support it.

Would this campaign promise be "If elected, I will personally come to everyone's house, kick down their door, and then shit on their breakfast table!"? If so, he's probably die of exhaustion in the process AND what if someone didn't have a breakfast table but claimed they did, then he'd spend all day looking for it. Also, he'd have to have really bad daiherria (please correct my spelling.)

Proof? Or is this more of the "teh ebil black man wants to stealz my money!!!" comments?

More like "teh ebil politician wants to stealz my money!!!" Obama will raise taxes - he's a politician - it's the nature of the beast.

There's no question taxes will be raised- the question is who's going to be hardest hit?

Like a lot of retired people and people close to retirement, I have an abiding fear of having more of my retirement income taxed - and, oh yes, it's taxed! My retirement is sufficient, but to take any more out of it would be personally disastrous.

I want to know - who's going to be hit hardest by Obama's tax raises (and, no, I don't want Rebublican rhetoric as an answer). Who's going to be hit hardist by McCain's tax raises (and, no, I don't want Democratic demagogery as an answer). Can anyone give a clear picture of who's going where? I don't think so because all politicians lie and all politicians steal.

I'll vote where I perceive the least threat to me, personally. If I'm wrong, well, I've been wrong before.

More like "teh ebil politician wants to stealz my money!!!" Obama will raise taxes - he's a politician - it's the nature of the beast.

There's no question taxes will be raised- the question is who's going to be hardest hit?

Like a lot of retired people and people close to retirement, I have an abiding fear of having more of my retirement income taxed - and, oh yes, it's taxed! My retirement is sufficient, but to take any more out of it would be personally disastrous.

I want to know - who's going to be hit hardest by Obama's tax raises (and, no, I don't want Rebublican rhetoric as an answer). Who's going to be hit hardist by McCain's tax raises (and, no, I don't want Democratic demagogery as an answer). Can anyone give a clear picture of who's going where? I don't think so because all politicians lie and all politicians steal.

I'll vote where I perceive the least threat to me, personally. If I'm wrong, well, I've been wrong before.
FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html) on the tax portion of the speech-
Tax Spin

Obama said: “I will cut taxes ... for 95 percent of all working families.” And he said McCain proposes “not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans,” a claim his running mate, Joe Biden, made the night before.

Obama is right about his plan's effect on working families. More broadly, though, the plan cuts taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009, according to the Tax Policy Center. The TPC also says McCain’s tax plan would leave 65.8 million households without a cut, not 100 million.

The TPC’s calculations factor in what's in effect a hidden tax on individuals that results from taxing corporations. McCain proposes to lower the corporate income tax rate, and Obama proposes billions of dollars in increased corporate taxes in the form of “loophole closings.” Individuals wouldn’t experience those changes as an increased tax bill from the government, but both the Congressional Budget Office and TPC allocate all corporate tax to owners of capital rather than to consumers. That means rather than flowing through to consumers in the form of higher prices or lower wages, corporate tax changes would show up as higher or lower returns on investments, which typically come in the form of corporate dividends, and profits or losses from stock sales.

Only by ignoring the hidden benefit to individuals can McCain’s plan be said to produce no cut for 100 million households. According to a calculation the TPC did at FactCheck's request, 101.9 million see no benefit if the effects of a corporate reduction are set aside.

For the record, Obama aides say the indirect effect on holders of capital won't be as large as TPC says. "We dispute TPC's methodology here," says Brian Deese of the Obama campaign. He says several of the "loophole closers" that Obama is proposing won't affect corporations or are on offshore activity that will not directly filter through.

We'd also note that retirees would fare quite a bit less well than working families under Obama's tax plan: The TPC estimates that 32 percent of households with a person over age 65 would see a tax increase.
Apparently where they got all of that. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1968&DocTypeID=2)

Would this campaign promise be "If elected, I will personally come to everyone's house, kick down their door, and then shit on their breakfast table!"? If so, he's probably die of exhaustion in the process AND what if someone didn't have a breakfast table but claimed they did, then he'd spend all day looking for it. Also, he'd have to have really bad daiherria (please correct my spelling.)

Dude's old anyway. Elected or otherwise, I wouldn't want to gamble too heavily on whether or not he'll actually survive 4 more years.

FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html) on the tax portion of the speech-

Apparently where they got all of that. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=1968&DocTypeID=2)

So, according to this, as a retiree, I should not vote for Obama.

So, according to this, as a retiree, I should not vote for Obama.

How much do you make? (Or what quintile do you fall in, I guess is a politer and more useful question?)

So, according to this, as a retiree, I should not vote for Obama.

Ignore the wording - what does "The TPC estimates that 32 percent of households with a person over age 65 would see a tax increase" mean to you?

That 68% of those households won't get a tax increase?

That 32% of ALL households will be getting a tax increase, and retiree's are about proportional?

That retirees, in general, are wealthier than working Americans?

(I've looked at the source it's supposed to be based on, and I'm not quite sure what kind of number juggling they're having to do to come up with that number... )

How much do you make? (Or what quintile do you fall in, I guess is a politer and more useful question?)

Adjusting for family size, my income falls under $23,000/annum, putting me, if I'm reading the graphs correctly, in the lower range.

I think that I'm fairly typical of most retired people and not wealthier in any respect than working Americans.

So where, in your estimation, would that put me in Obama's plan? Because, again, if I'm reading the graphs correctly, I'm not benefitting.

Have you seen that ad McCain is putting out saying that Obama is intending to raise taxes? OF COURSE he is, for the top 5%, who will be like "Oh no! Now we have to give more money to the government so the less fortunate are given an equal chance!" The ad makes it seem like he's raising taxes for lower and lower-middle class citizens. That kind of manipulation pisses me off.

Wait, lemme say it for you:
Welcome to politics

I know what else grinds your gears. Diamonds. They're as hard as hell and throwing a handful of diamond shards into the ol' gearbox should grind things up good. :p

I can't tell, was that sarcasm? Personally I thought it was relatively straightforward except for that one part.

No not sarcasm, incredulouse laughter. I can certianly see the inherent irony with a post extorting you to be more clear in your communication, when as far I can see your 'point' was adequatly put accross, and so I can only surmise it is not your communication skill that should be addressed here.:D

No not sarcasm, incredulouse laughter. I can certianly see the inherent irony with a post extorting you to be more clear in your communication, when as far I can see your 'point' was adequatly put accross, and so I can only surmise it is not your communication skill that should be addressed here.:D

Umm.. what? I lost you after the first sentance. Nah, really I think you're the first person that defended me there, you shoulda said that earlier... Like 5 people trashed me on that.

I know what else grinds your gears. Diamonds. They're as hard as hell and throwing a handful of diamond shards into the ol' gearbox should grind things up good. :p

Nononono! I have sparkly diamond gears! What you just said is how I get my daimond dust to coat my knives before I go on a killing spree >.> <.< :confused:

Umm.. what? I lost you after the first sentance. Nah, really I think you're the first person that defended me there, you shoulda said that earlier... Like 5 people trashed me on that.

Heh welcome to the NSG club, where trashing is a sport and you can never tell friend from foe.

Don't worry about the trashing, we all get some of it from time to time.

Heh welcome to the NSG club, where trashing is a sport and you can never tell friend from foe.

Don't worry about the trashing, we all get some of it from time to time.

Nuh uh! My real life friend only has like 18 posts, so he hasn't had any... or wait, nevermind... He got ripped apart by a mod in the WA section...

Have you seen that ad McCain is putting out saying that Obama is intending to raise taxes? OF COURSE he is, for the top 5%, who will be like "Oh no! Now we have to give more money to the government so the less fortunate are given an equal chance!" The ad makes it seem like he's raising taxes for lower and lower-middle class citizens. That kind of manipulation pisses me off.

Wait, lemme say it for you:
Welcome to politics

When is the last time you actually read the US tax code? Also, tell me specifically what these "tax cuts for the rich" are, because I've been searching all over for them and can't seem to find them. Even as I do the taxes for very rich people I can't find these super special discounts they are supposed to be getting.

When is the last time you actually read the US tax code? Also, tell me specifically what these "tax cuts for the rich" are, because I've been searching all over for them and can't seem to find them. Even as I do the taxes for very rich people I can't find these super special discounts they are supposed to be getting.

You're not looking very hard.

The most in-depth comparison to date of McCain and Barack Obama's tax plans was performed by the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute that is nonetheless staffed by both Republicans and Democrats -- co-director Eugene Steuerle was a deputy assistant secretary under Ronald Reagan -- and is known for its methodological rigor. Its 38-page analysis found that McCain's proposals would make the tax system even "more regressive" than permanently extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001 to 2006. McCain would accomplish this by following Bush's blueprint and then supersizing it: providing "relatively little" tax relief to low- and middle-income earners, while giving "huge tax cuts" to the highest income brackets.

Link (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/07/09/mccain_taxes/)

The Tax Policy Center's computations show stark differences between the Obama and McCain plans in their relative impact on middle-class and high-income taxpayers. A middle-class family making $66,000 a year would see their taxes drop by $319 a year under McCain's proposal, while a wealthy family making $604,000 a year would see a cut of $45,000. By contrast, Obama offers the biggest breaks for taxpayers at the bottom and in the middle of the income spectrum, while imposing sizeable tax increases on some of the highest earners -- those making more than $250,000 annually. Under Obama's plan, the middle-income family would receive a tax break that is three times larger than McCain's -- $1,042. The wealthy family would see a tax increase of $116,000 a year.

In addition to permanently extending Bush's tax cuts, the major features of McCain's plan include slashing the corporate tax, reducing the estate tax, giving companies a deduction on new equipment and increasing the child tax credit. McCain also wants to extend relief from the gas tax this summer and the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which has been hitting upper-middle-class families with higher tax rates in recent years.

Though of course...

McCain’s campaign did not respond to Salon's requests for comment, but McCain’s economic advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin called the analysis "misleading on the whole and wrong in some particulars" in a response on the Tax Policy Center’s blog. Holtz-Eakin’s main argument was the analysis did not give enough weight to the spending cuts that will offset McCain’s tax cuts.

However, where is this money being cut from?

To get a sense of McCain's ambition, his tax cuts would cost the federal budget as much as $4 trillion from 2009 through the end of 2018, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That's eight times the size of the Pentagon's base budget this year. Bush's cuts would cost only $1.6 trillion if extended to cover the same ten-year period.

You're not looking very hard.
I was talking about the current tax code. I can't read McCain's imaginary tax code because it doesn't exist. I want to know from the current tax code where the super special discounts rich people get are. I've been hearing this "tax cuts for the rich" thing since 2000, and haven't seen it. I want to know where it's at.

I was talking about the current tax code. I can't read McCain's imaginary tax code because it doesn't exist. I want to know from the current tax code where the super special discounts rich people get are. I've been hearing this "tax cuts for the rich" thing since 2000, and haven't seen it. I want to know where it's at.

The income tax cap has been reduced, IIRC. I'm trying to find something that lists what percentage income tax caps at but I'm having trouble.

I was talking about the current tax code. I can't read McCain's imaginary tax code because it doesn't exist. I want to know from the current tax code where the super special discounts rich people get are. I've been hearing this "tax cuts for the rich" thing since 2000, and haven't seen it. I want to know where it's at.

For start he lowered the marginal tax rates for those with incomes over $350,000 from 40% to 35%. He also approved the lowering of the capital gains tax from 20% to 15%, which helps everyone who owns stock, real estate, or any other sell-able asset, which most benefits the wealthiest members of society since they own more of those assets.

Capital gains...http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points4-18-08.htm

I was talking about the current tax code. I can't read McCain's imaginary tax code because it doesn't exist. I want to know from the current tax code where the super special discounts rich people get are. I've been hearing this "tax cuts for the rich" thing since 2000, and haven't seen it. I want to know where it's at.

Try here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2008_income_brackets_and_tax_rates)

Man what a strange way of doing it. If I read it correctly.

Somebody earning say $10,000 PA pays a tax rate of 15%.

Whilst somebody earning say $40.000 PA pays a rate of 15% up until $32.500 and then 25% after that.

Now I'm not that good at maths, but the example given(on the website) shows that the single person earning $40.000 PA actualy pays a total of 16.06% of his wage in tax, whilst the man earning three times less pays a mere 1.06% less of his wage in tax.

That would appear to me, to look like the man earning more is paying almost the same % in tax, I would call that a tax break for the rich.

For start he lowered the marginal tax rates for those with incomes over $350,000 from 40% to 35%.
He lowered everyone's marginal tax rates.

He also approved the lowering of the capital gains tax from 20% to 15%, which helps everyone who owns stock, real estate, or any other sell-able asset, which most benefits the wealthiest members of society since they own more of those assets.
The child tax credit most benefits people who pop out a bunch of kids.

I was talking about the current tax code. I can't read McCain's imaginary tax code because it doesn't exist. I want to know from the current tax code where the super special discounts rich people get are. I've been hearing this "tax cuts for the rich" thing since 2000, and haven't seen it. I want to know where it's at.

dividend earnings.

dividend earnings.

Shh... the grown ups are talking.

Shh... the grown ups are talking.

. . . .pardon?

If you knew a fraction of current tax code as you claim to, you'd know exactly what I was referring to. Prior to the Bush administration, dividend earnings were calculated as normal income, which was used to determine your marginal tax rate. Now, however, dividend earnings are not considered as income when determining your tax rate, and rather, those dividend earnings are taxed as capital gains.

In the old system, dividend earnings were simply income, and taxed at whatever your income is taxed at, up to 30%+. Now, however, since they are taxed as capital gains, they are only taxed at 10-15%. Which means that individuals who have little to no dividend earnings are entirely unaffected, but those who keep substantial portions of their wealth in dividend earning stock, especially preferred, cumulative, and preferred-cumulative stock, are now taxed significantly less on those dividends that they earn, in addition to being taxed at a lower capital gains rate, and not income tax rates, when they sell those stocks at a cost exceeding the stock basis. Then when you calculate dividend reinvestment plans which allow rollover of dividends into stocks with a new computation of basis on those stocks which allows for an even further decrease on the capital gains made.

So if you want to argue that a change in the tax code that taxes stock dividends at 15% and not 30+% doesn't extremely favor the rich, go right ahead, I imagine that you won't be too successful. Especially since that while capital gains tax rate is set for pretty much everyone, the marginal income tax rate increases as income increases, so being able to transfer income not only from a higher rate to a lower rate, but actually allows those with higher incomes to make an even MORE dramatic gain because not only is a higher amount of their income in dividend earnings, but the drop from their tax rate to the fixed 15% tax rate is even more substantial.

That "grown up" enough for you princess?

. . . .pardon?

If you knew a fraction of current tax code as you claim to, you'd know exactly what I was referring to. Prior to the Bush administration, dividend earnings were calculated as normal income, which was used to determine your marginal tax rate. Now, however, dividend earnings are not considered as income when determining your tax rate, and rather, those dividend earnings are taxed as capital gains.

In the old system, dividend earnings were simply income, and taxed at whatever your income is taxed at, up to 30%+. Now, however, since they are taxed as capital gains, they are only taxed at 10-15%. Which means that individuals who have little to no dividend earnings are entirely unaffected, but those who keep substantial portions of their wealth in dividend earning stock, especially preferred, cumulative, and preferred-cumulative stock, are now taxed significantly less on those dividends that they earn, in addition to being taxed at a lower capital gains rate, and not income tax rates, when they sell those stocks at a cost exceeding the stock basis.

So if you want to argue that a change in the tax code that taxes stock dividends at 15% and not 30+% doesn't extremely favor the rich, go right ahead, I imagine that you won't be too successful.

That "grown up" enough for you princess?

I know what you are talking about. I wanted to see if they know what you are talking about. I don't particularly think dividends are the "income of the rich", but I know how this has affected people's tax burden.

Nice try with the "princess" comment though, really shows your true colors.

I know what you are talking about. I wanted to see if they know what you are talking about.

Suuuuuure you did.

I don't particularly think dividends are the "income of the rich"

Then you are woefully ignorant as to how those with money in this country use it.

Nice try with the "princess" comment though, really shows your true colors.

If you're only figuring out my "true colors" by now you haven't been paying attention. If you think you deserve to be treated like an adult, the first step is acting like one. Asking a question then getting pissy when you get the answer shows you have a LOOOONG way to go.

By the way, to directly answer your question, if you wanted a place to start reading, here you go: 26 U.S.C. § 1 (h)(11)

Suuuuuure you did.
I suuuuuure did. I don't think it's relevant to my question.

Then you are woefully ignorant as to how those with money in this country use it.
Dividends being capital gains helps people who earn dividends. The child tax credit helps people who have children. Rich people don't own exclusive rights to the earning of dividends, I know many non rich people who earn dividends. Therefore it's not a super cool tax cut for the rich, so much as a super cool tax cut for people who earn dividends.



If you're only figuring out my "true colors" by now you haven't been paying attention.
Misogynistic provocateur. Noted.

If you think you deserve to be treated like an adult, the first step is acting like one.
One would think you would take your own advice.

Asking a question then getting pissy when you get the answer shows you have a LOOOONG way to go.
Your answer was irrelevant.

What color is the sky?
Eleven.

What color is the sky?
Eleven.

Bwahahaha nice try darlin', but that is not the correct answer!;)

He lowered everyone's marginal tax rates.

The rich got the greatest cut, sure from the highest bracket but they came out with a greater windfall.

The child tax credit most benefits people who pop out a bunch of kids

Okay....?

83% of sales affected by CGT is carried out by the top 1% of wealth owners. I can hardly imagine how that translates into cash.

One might point to Clinton's cuts in '97 but that was engineered and pushed by the Republicans, resisted initially then signed.

As is often the case in economics, the effects are constantly disputed but in each case there was a recession hitting 4 years later. I'm not entirely sure there's a connection, does dropping CGT encourage wild speculation?

Different sides say different stories and I'm certainly not expert enough on the economy to say, nor arrogant enough to think I could when professionals disagree.

Funnily enough, the Huckabee campaign made this connection trying to blame Clinton for the Tech bubble, forgetting it was the Republicans who engineered the cuts. I'm sure there's a way to blame him for the housing bubble.

You can be sure George Bush had no hesitation in both engineering and signing.

Despite the dispute, the rich benefit.

It's the cumulative effects of these tax breaks though, to say the super-rich didn't benefit enormously, who have the means to squirrel a huge portion of assets and earnings away anyway, who have all sorts of tax breaks in business, homes and havens.

it's the middle classes who are going bankrupt.

Dividends being capital gains helps people who earn dividends.

And those people tend to be? Think hard. Think real hard.

Therefore it's not a super cool tax cut for the rich, so much as a super cool tax cut for people who earn dividends.

Do you think that when people say that parts of the tax code favor the rich that they're implying that some parts of the tax code literally, blatantly say "the rich get benefits"? Are you deliberately being that obtuse? Or are you just incapable of understanding that when people point out that the tax code, in parts, favors the rich, it means that the tax code provides benefits to certain people, and that those people are often rich.

Yes, shockingly, non rich people earn dividends, but does the change in tax code have any appreciable difference in their overall post tax earnings? If you make $100 a year in dividends, an extra $20 might be nice, but it's hardly deal breaking.

But if your dividend earnings are $100,000, then you save $20,000. Not only are the numbers bigger directly, but not only do the wealthy save more in actual dollars and cents, but the percentage of their income that comes from dividends is typically higher, so this change impacts them in a greater proportion as well.

But of course, after you got backed into a corner, instead of just doing the adult thing and admitting your own ignorance in something you profess to know about, you try to weasel your way out of it by pretending that you really didn't mean what you said, and somehow you just really and truly believed that when people said that parts of the tax code favor the rich, they meant that literally and directly, and not saying that parts of hte code have a disproportionate beneficial impact on the wealthy.

Of course, admitting that would be the adult thing to do. So not surprising you didn't. But don't worry, if you have trouble understanding it, just ask your super genious 6 year old. I'm sure she can explain it to you.

Misogynistic provocateur. Noted.

Right, that's why I asked a question, and told you to "grow up" when you answered it.

No, wait, that was you.

And those people tend to be? Think hard. Think real hard.

Mostly conservative middle-class investors, pension and other retirement funds, and retirees looking to minimize their risk and get a steady stream of income from their investments.

Dividends are simply not a good way to make money, plain and simple. Even the best dividend returns are maybe 5%, and most average 1-3% with no guarantee of being paid out. Compare this to the 12% average historical return in the markets, let alone the staggering performance of growth stocks in a bull market and you can see why nobody buys stocks for their dividends. There's a method to value stocks based on anticipated dividends and growth, but nobody wants to hold stocks until the horizon point because it will take years to recoup the initial investment.

Here's an example. If you wanted to earn $50,000 in income from ExxonMobil dividends you would have to invest over $2.4 million in the stock. That translates to a payback period, without inflation, of almost 50 years. BP, which pays a far higher dividend, would require an investment of $806,000 with a payback period of 16 years, without inflation. You would have to spend an amount of time equal to your entire working life to recoup that money, and since the return may likely be lower than inflation it's likely you'll never recoup that investment unless you sell the stock for a capital gain.

No investor, and especially no wealthy investor, with half a brain will derive their income from dividends.

And those people tend to be? Think hard. Think real hard.
People on retirement? middle class people? People who own stocks that pay dividends.


Do you think that when people say that parts of the tax code favor the rich that they're implying that some parts of the tax code literally, blatantly say "the rich get benefits"?
They seem to think so. They don't seem to understand that tax cuts affect people who aren't rich. A person recieving retirement dividends might not be able to pay daily costs if this particular tax cut were repealed.

Are you deliberately being that obtuse?
Are you?

Or are you just incapable of understanding that when people point out that the tax code, in parts, favors the rich, it means that the tax code provides benefits to certain people, and that those people are often rich.

That's a false dichotomy.
Yes, shockingly, non rich people earn dividends, but does the change in tax code have any appreciable difference in their overall post tax earnings?
It's plausable that it would.
If you make $100 a year in dividends, an extra $20 might be nice, but it's hardly deal breaking.

Okay.
But if your dividend earnings are $100,000, then you save $20,000. Not only are the numbers bigger directly, but not only do the wealthy save more in actual dollars and cents, but the percentage of their income that comes from dividends is typically higher, so this change impacts them in a greater proportion as well.

It affects them in the same proportion.
But of course, after you got backed into a corner, instead of just doing the adult thing and admitting your own ignorance in something you profess to know about, you try to weasel your way out of it by pretending that you really didn't mean what you said, and somehow you just really and truly believed that when people said that parts of the tax code favor the rich, they meant that literally and directly, and not saying that parts of hte code have a disproportionate beneficial impact on the wealthy.

Your "analysis" of the situation isn't factual. I'm not backed into any corner. You don't understand my question and therefore haven't answered it to my satisfaction. You have characterized me as stupid, a "princess" and a child. It's rather amusing.
Of course, admitting that would be the adult thing to do. So not surprising you didn't. But don't worry, if you have trouble understanding it, just ask your super genious 6 year old. I'm sure she can explain it to you.

I'm sure you know all about the "grown up" things.

Not enough lubrication.

Mostly conservative middle-class investors, pension and other retirement funds, and retirees looking to minimize their risk and get a steady stream of income from their investments.

True, though I would say that in my experience the middle-class investors are usually new enough to the investing game to look at the lousy ROI dividends give you and say "no thanks". Not that they don't own lots of dividend-paying stocks -- just like everyone else, they own them in their tax-deferred retirement accounts (IRAs et al.) and thus the reduced tax rates on cap gains and dividends does not affect them at all.

Dividends are simply not a good way to make money, plain and simple. Even the best dividend returns are maybe 5%, and most average 1-3% with no guarantee of being paid out. Compare this to the 12% average historical return in the markets, let alone the staggering performance of growth stocks in a bull market and you can see why nobody buys stocks for their dividends.

...anymore. Those folks who were lucky enough to buy value stocks back in the mid-80s are now seeing annual dividends that actually make their initial investment worthwhile. Even with today's stinky dividend yield, your annual payout from 1 lousy share of, say, JNJ is more than what you paid for the share in 1987. (At least it was last year, which is the last time I checked.) So if you were rich enough to sink tons o' cash into the S&P 500 back in the 80s (or earlier, or if you inherited shares,) and you're a conservative/moderate, income-oriented investor, then you're doing OK by dividends. That's sort of the exception that proves the rule, though, as there are relatively few investors who are both that rich and conservative enough.

No investor, and especially no wealthy investor, with half a brain will derive their income from dividends.

Well, yes and no. Most income-oriented investors still see dividend stocks and/or convertibles as a good part of their asset-allocation strategy. And with today's reduced estate and dividend taxes, the number of people with dividends from inherited wealth is growing. It's really more of a question of risk tolerance than intelligence. I guess I'd say "no investor with new money to invest today would choose to derive more than a small portion of his or her income from dividends."

Sorry for the (probably) tldr post -- listening to people quibble about investment options used to be my job.

Mostly conservative middle-class investors, pension and other retirement funds, and retirees looking to minimize their risk and get a steady stream of income from their investments.

Dividends are simply not a good way to make money, plain and simple. Even the best dividend returns are maybe 5%, and most average 1-3% with no guarantee of being paid out. Compare this to the 12% average historical return in the markets, let alone the staggering performance of growth stocks in a bull market and you can see why nobody buys stocks for their dividends. There's a method to value stocks based on anticipated dividends and growth, but nobody wants to hold stocks until the horizon point because it will take years to recoup the initial investment.

While true when speaking of common stock, preferred stock tends to have a far more stable growth, and tend to be the, for lack of a better word, preferred method of stable investing, over less stable common stock, or a volatile market return.

Try here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2008_income_brackets_and_tax_rates)

Man what a strange way of doing it. If I read it correctly.

Somebody earning say $10,000 PA pays a tax rate of 15%.

Whilst somebody earning say $40.000 PA pays a rate of 15% up until $32.500 and then 25% after that.

Now I'm not that good at maths, but the example given(on the website) shows that the single person earning $40.000 PA actualy pays a total of 16.06% of his wage in tax, whilst the man earning three times less pays a mere 1.06% less of his wage in tax.

That would appear to me, to look like the man earning more is paying almost the same % in tax, I would call that a tax break for the rich.

Your math isn't wrong, though the final tax burden is complicated by the fact that the single person earning $10K most likely qualifies for significant tax credits that the person earning $40K does not. This makes the overall income tax code even more progressive than it appears; the "tax cuts for the rich" that bleeding-hearts like me complain about really show up in other parts of the tax system which disproportionately benefit the wealthy, as well as high-income-earners who are not foolish enough to ignore the tax code.

EDIT: I should really read posts before I reply to them. You have the right idea, though your math is slightly off. The lowest tax bracket is 10% for the first $8025 in taxable income so the person making $10K of taxable income has a tax burden of 10.99% and the person making $40K TI has a tax burden of 15.86%.

Misogynistic provocateur. Noted.




What?


The misogynistc part is especially a stretch.

Even as I do the taxes for very rich people I can't find these super special discounts they are supposed to be getting.

Okay... so you do taxes...

If you make $100 a year in dividends, an extra $20 might be nice, but it's hardly deal breaking.

But if your dividend earnings are $100,000, then you save $20,000. Not only are the numbers bigger directly, but not only do the wealthy save more in actual dollars and cents, but the percentage of their income that comes from dividends is typically higher, so this change impacts them in a greater proportion as well.

Okay, so you failed math and are doing taxes... Remind me not to come to you for help w/ my taxes. 5:1 is 5:1 (BUT CORN IS NOT JUST CORN [Reaper Man quote] whether it's $100,000,000,000,000,000 : $20,000,000,000,000,000 or $5 : $1, it's the same proportion. 'nuff said

Okay, so you failed math and are doing taxes... Remind me not to come to you for help w/ my taxes. 5:1 is 5:1 (BUT CORN IS NOT JUST CORN [Rea[er Man quote) wheter it's $100,000,000,000,000,000 : $20,000,000,000,000,000 or $5 : $1, it's the same proportion. 'nuff said

May I recommend you read what I said a little bit closer.

the percentage of their income that comes from dividends is typically higher, so this change impacts them in a greater proportion as well.

In case you missed the important part of that statement:

the percentage of their income that comes from dividends is typically higher

Next time, read first, then post. Might save you some effort, and face.

May I recommend you read what I said a little bit closer.



In case you missed the important part of that statement:



Next time, read first, then post. Might save you some effort, and face.

Umm, link please?

And do try not to quote me before I have time to edit my post. ;P

Not saying that I'm right at all, but I would like to get a glimpse at where this info comes from, because personally I haven't seen anything to that effect floating around. O.o

Adjusting for family size, my income falls under $23,000/annum, putting me, if I'm reading the graphs correctly, in the lower range.

I think that I'm fairly typical of most retired people and not wealthier in any respect than working Americans.

So where, in your estimation, would that put me in Obama's plan? Because, again, if I'm reading the graphs correctly, I'm not benefitting.

Based on the chart I'm looking at, your tax cut will be 3.6% with Obama, 0.5% with McCain.

Have you seen that ad McCain is putting out saying that Obama is intending to raise taxes? OF COURSE he is, for the top 5%, who will be like "Oh no! Now we have to give more money to the government so the less fortunate are given an equal chance!" The ad makes it seem like he's raising taxes for lower and lower-middle class citizens. That kind of manipulation pisses me off.

Wait, lemme say it for you:
Welcome to politics

Dear Pinko,

I think that rich people cause less trouble than the poor folks. If the poor are more of a burden, why should rich people pay more taxes? We need to reward wealth and make people accountable for their own stupidity instead of bailing them out. Even the term "less fortunate" shows your warped view of life. Unless we are talking about diseases and injuries there is little "fortune" out there. We make our own fortune or we screw up and make our own misfortune.

If anything the people who make bad decisions in life should be taxed more than those that made smart decisions. Since the Pinko establishment, of which you seem to be a part of, will never let that happen, it would be nice if everyone just paid the same percentage of their incomes to taxes.

When you go to a restaraunt there are no separate prices for rich people and poor people. We all pay the same in the market, why should things be so different when it comes to our taxes.

I think that citizens should pay less tax than non-citizens, veterans and active and reserve duty folks in the military should pay less taxes than those who never served, and people with clean criminal records should pay less than convicts. We should get away from this socialist garbage and move in the direction of merit based taxation.

Dear Pinko,

I think that rich people cause less trouble than the poor folks. If the poor are more of a burden, why should rich people pay more taxes? We need to reward wealth and make people accountable for their own stupidity instead of bailing them out. Even the term "less fortunate" shows your warped view of life. Unless we are talking about diseases and injuries there is little "fortune" out there. We make our own fortune or we screw up and make our own misfortune.

If anything the people who make bad decisions in life should be taxed more than those that made smart decisions. Since the Pinko establishment, of which you seem to be a part of, will never let that happen, it would be nice if everyone just paid the same percentage of their incomes to taxes.

When you go to a restaraunt there are no separate prices for rich people and poor people. We all pay the same in the market, why should things be so different when it comes to our taxes.

I think that citizens should pay less tax than non-citizens, veterans and active and reserve duty folks in the military should pay less taxes than those who never served, and people with clean criminal records should pay less than convicts. We should get away from this socialist garbage and move in the direction of merit based taxation.

the real world is not a meritocracy - nothing like it. if it were, what you say would make some sense.

While true when speaking of common stock, preferred stock tends to have a far more stable growth, and tend to be the, for lack of a better word, preferred method of stable investing, over less stable common stock, or a volatile market return.

A preferred stock is little more than a bond in stock's clothing. This investment choice is not a good way to build wealth although it is not a shabby way of protecting it.

the real world is not a meritocracy - nothing like it. if it were, what you say would make some sense.

I disagree. I am a lawyer and I see all types of folks in my practice. Typically, the succesful ones have really earned their success and the people who make screwed up choices have screwed up lives. Of course there are always exceptions but generally this is how the world works.

Europe, those damn Europeans have too many damn languages damn it! They need to get rid of like 5 or 6 of them. Just do away with some of the Eastern European ones, they're not necessary. And do you people really need that many Scandinavian languages.

While true when speaking of common stock, preferred stock tends to have a far more stable growth, and tend to be the, for lack of a better word, preferred method of stable investing, over less stable common stock, or a volatile market return.

But preferred stock is almost never traded over-the-counter, especially since it generally grants no voting rights to the holders. The bulk of owners are investment funds, trusts, and other large institutional investors, of which most are holding the shares as part of the asset backing for securities or as part of the general pool for mutual funds. To put it in perspective, the total capitalization of preferred stock is around 1-2% of the total market capitalization of common stock, so it's pretty marginal as is.

Ultimately, to generate revenues, taxing dividends as capital gains rather than as income is not a good idea. Taxing them in general is unfair, but given the financial situation of the US government it's probably not something we can abolish with any ease. It primarily penalizes retirees and middle-class investors whose money is almost certainly focused primarily on mutual funds and other balanced investments.

A preferred stock is little more than a bond in stock's clothing. This investment choice is not a good way to build wealth although it is not a shabby way of protecting it.

The best use for preferred stock is usually to protect the company from hostile takeovers, and of course as a way of raising capital without having to necessarily make the dividend payments.

Of course, if you fall behind on your dividends to preferred stockholders, in most cases you're going to have to pay all outstanding arrears before common shareholders can receive any dividends. That doesn't apply to all of the flavors of preferred stock, but it's the most common form out there and it's probably hard to encourage the risk-adverse investors most interested in preferred stock to buy said stock if they have no guarantee of a return on the investment.

*sigh* I fix up the OP and people are still bitching about it...


If the poor are more of a burden, why should rich people pay more taxes?
Yes, let's get all our money from the people who don't have it, good idea.
Even the term "less fortunate" shows your warped view of life.Unless we are talking about diseases and injuries there is little "fortune" out there. We make our own fortune or we screw up and make our own misfortune.

Yes, because people decide to be born into a poor family, people decide what race they want to be. (descrimination leads to low self-esteem leads to clouded judgement) And most importantly people decide to be born in war ravaged 3rd-world countries, complete screw ups on their parts, right?
veterans and active and reserve duty folks in the military should pay less taxes than those who never served,
Yes, let's increase the size of our military by offering tax cuts because wars are great for the economy :rolleyes:

Typically, the succesful ones have really earned their success and the people who make screwed up choices have screwed up lives.

Yes, no one is ever born into a rich family :rolleyes: and as a lawyer of course the people that you see with screwed up lives will have made bad choices, how many poor people get stolen from as opposed to the wealthier? (or at least middle class, wealthy people can usually afford decent security systems from the ones I've seen in my life. One of whom had kept his company alive on theft. Great example of earning his success.)

I love the name of this thread.

Thank you?

Yes, no one is ever born into a rich family :rolleyes: and as a lawyer of course the people that you see with screwed up lives will have made bad choices, how many poor people get stolen from as opposed to the wealthier? (or at least middle class, wealthy people can usually afford decent security systems from the ones I've seen in my life. One of whom had kept his company alive on theft. Great example of earning his success.)

Most of the rich clients that we have came from poor families. However the only super dooper insanely rich ones that we have had family connections. But at least they had the sense not to squander the wealth like some lottery winners and heirs do.

Thank you?

you are welcome

Most of the rich clients that we have came from poor families. However the only super dooper insanely rich ones that we have had family connections. But at least they had the sense not to squander the wealth like some lottery winners and heirs do.

I work with some of the wealthiest people in my city. Most of them made their fortunes during Prohibition. Or should I say, their families did. Most of our rich clients come from rich families.

Should we keep trading anecdotes, or should we start looking at real numbers?

I work with some of the wealthiest people in my city. Most of them made their fortunes during Prohibition. Or should I say, their families did. Most of our rich clients come from rich families.

Should we keep trading anecdotes, or should we start looking at real numbers?

What numbers are you talking about?

What numbers are you talking about?

The amount of rich people who came from poor families compared to the number of rich people who came from rich families.

You claimed there were more of the former. In my experience, there are more of the latter.

Yes, let's increase the size of our military by offering tax cuts because wars are great for the economy :rolleyes:

Sadly, companies that manufactor all the weapons get paid in the billions...

Read up on Eisenhower and the Military Industrial Complex.

The US is denying an anti-RPG device that could be installed on tanks because the Israelies made it, and that means we'd be paying the Israelies instead of our own companies that want to profit.

Man I hate our government.

What numbers are you talking about?

These might do (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html):

Children from low-income families have only a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent of the income distribution, versus children of the rich who have about a 22 percent chance.

Children born to the middle quintile of parental family income ($42,000 to $54,300) had about the same chance of ending up in a lower quintile than their parents (39.5 percent) as they did of moving to a higher quintile (36.5 percent). Their chances of attaining the top five percentiles of the income distribution were just 1.8 percent.

Education, race, health and state of residence are four key channels by which economic status is transmitted from parent to child.

African American children who are born in the bottom quartile are nearly twice as likely to remain there as adults than are white children whose parents had identical incomes, and are four times less likely to attain the top quartile.

The difference in mobility for blacks and whites persists even after controlling for a host of parental background factors, children’s education and health, as well as whether the household was female-headed or receiving public assistance.

After controlling for a host of parental background variables, upward mobility varied by region of origin, and is highest (in percentage terms) for those who grew up in the South Atlantic and East South Central regions, and lowest for those raised in the West South Central and Mountain regions.

By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.

The overall volatility of household income increased significantly between 1990-91 and 1997-98 and again in 2003-04.

Since 1990-91, there has been an increase in the share of households who experienced significant downward short-term mobility. The share that saw their incomes decline by $20,000 or more (in real terms) rose from 13.0 percent in 1990-91 to 14.8 percent in 1997-98 to 16.6 percent in 2003-04.

For the middle class, an increase in income volatility has led to an increase in the frequency of large negative income shocks, which may be expected to translate to an increase in financial distress.

Households whose adult members all worked more than 40 hours per week for two years in a row were more upwardly mobile in 1990-91 and 1997-98 than households who worked fewer hours. Yet this was not true in 2003-04, suggesting that people who work long hours on a consistent basis no longer appear to be able to generate much upward mobility for their families.

The amount of rich people who came from poor families compared to the number of rich people who came from rich families.

You claimed there were more of the former. In my experience, there are more of the latter.

Well what do you mean by rich? When I think of rich I think of 5 to 100 million. When I think of super rich I think of 100 million plus. There are a lot of people that are rich and I think that many of them are self made. I only have my own observations and the Millionaire Next Door to go off of though. The super rich might be self made or they might have financially stood on the shoulders of giants. I do not know too much about the super rich.

These might do (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1579981.html):

So the chidlren of the rich only have a 22% of becoming rich themselves? That is pretty abysmal. 78% of rich kids do not wind up rich themselves. I think that is pretty good meritocracy. Being born rich helps but it takes something more to become rich oneself.

Well what do you mean by rich? When I think of rich I think of 5 to 100 million. When I think of super rich I think of 100 million plus. There are a lot of people that are rich and I think that many of them are self made. I only have my own observations and the Millionaire Next Door to go off of though. The super rich might be self made or they might have financially stood on the shoulders of giants. I do not know too much about the super rich.

It's okay. Neo Art has already provided quantified information as evidence that you are wrong. The numbers clearly show that most rich people in the US have rich parents.

You know what really grinds my gears? More taxes.

I don't even understand why the rich have a real problem with paying taxes. I mean, I can understand that it's nice having all that wealth, and even that they did indeed earn it and shouldn't have to give it up.

But taxing wealther people more money just makes a lot more sense.

Sadly, companies that manufactor all the weapons get paid in the billions...

Read up on Eisenhower and the Military Industrial Complex.

The US is denying an anti-RPG device that could be installed on tanks because the Israelies made it, and that means we'd be paying the Israelies instead of our own companies that want to profit.

Man I hate our government.

Israeli companies need profits too and if they have the patents this should be respected. We are not the French! Damned treacherous thieves.

So the chidlren of the rich only have a 22% of becoming rich themselves? That is pretty abysmal. 78% of rich kids do not wind up rich themselves. I think that is pretty good meritocracy. Being born rich helps but it takes something more to become rich oneself.

You don't understand the numbers. The rich have a 22% chance of getting in the top 5%. If everything was fair, they would have a 5% chance of being in the top 5%. So if you're born rich, you are already more than four times as likely to get in the top 5%.

Israeli companies need profits too and if they have the patents this should be respected. We are not the French! Damned treacherous thieves.

You do realise the value of having your defense technology made locally, right?

You don't understand the numbers. The rich have a 22% chance of getting in the top 5%. If everything was fair, they would have a 5% chance of being in the top 5%. So if you're born rich, you are already more than four times as likely to get in the top 5%.



You do realise the value of having your defense technology made locally, right?

Who ever said life was fair? What are you a liberal hippie? I am sure we can make the military equipment here, but the Israelis should get paid and not rippied off like the French would do.

I don't even understand why the rich have a real problem with paying taxes. I mean, I can understand that it's nice having all that wealth, and even that they did indeed earn it and shouldn't have to give it up.

But taxing wealther people more money just makes a lot more sense.
As a percentage yes.
As a higher percentage no.

Example: I'm fine with taxing everyone, say, 10% (Not the number I want, but let's say this for the scenario). However, i would not want to tax everyone 10%, except those who make 150,000 a year or more, who would be taxeed 15%. Note this is just an example.

Who ever said life was fair?

You apparently did. When you claimed that most rich people come from poor backgrounds. You also said it was a pretty good meritocracy.

The numbers prove you wrong.

As a percentage yes.
As a higher percentage no.

Example: I'm fine with taxing everyone, say, 10% (Not the number I want, but let's say this for the scenario). However, i would not want to tax everyone 10%, except those who make 150,000 a year or more, who would be taxeed 15%. Note this is just an example.

except that's not how our tax system works, at all.

You apparently did. When you claimed that most rich people come from poor backgrounds. You also said it was a pretty good meritocracy.

The numbers prove you wrong.

It is a pretty good meritocracy if being born rich only gives a 21 percent greater chance of becoming rich.

It is a pretty good meritocracy if being born rich only gives a 21 percent greater chance of becoming rich.

That's because most don't need to get any richer or even rich. Since they are rich.

Already.

except that's not how our tax system works, at all.

CM is, if I recall correctly, 13. He has never paid taxes.

It's just a statement he's learned, the same statement I feel many people make when it comes to Democrats.

*Arms forward, dribble from mouth*

"Taxesssssss"

CM is, if I recall correctly, 13. He has never paid taxes.

It's just a statement he's learned, the same statement I feel many people make when it comes to Democrats.

*Arms forward, dribble from mouth*

"Taxesssssss"

He should probably be claiming "No taxation without representation!", since he can't vote yet.

....I love that the current ad stuck in the middle of this thread reads: "I'm rich. You're not. See how I make $3 million per year doing nothing!"

I love that it's friggin' Leisure Suit Larry.

Okay, here's my ad.

Become Millionaire
Invest In 1 Month Have Money High Profit With Good Plan.
www.BigManCash.com

Given the grammar, try reading in a North Korean accent and tell me that isn't Kim Jong-Il trying to play us a fool for some quick cash into his bank.

Okay, here's my ad.
Given the grammar, try reading in a North Korean accent and tell me that isn't Kim Jong-Il trying to play us a fool for some quick cash into his bank.

He also definitely refers to himself as 'Big Man' too.

No doubt.

I just keep getting eating disorder ads.

That's because most don't need to get any richer or even rich. Since they are rich.

Already.

No the statistic cited earlier was if I recall correctly that people born to rich parents are only 21% more likely to be wealthy adults than people born to poor parents. This is not so bad when you think about it.

He also definitely refers to himself as 'Big Man' too.

No doubt.

I just keep getting eating disorder ads.

I have to say, I sometimes feel a little sick looking at the bouffant hairstyle in your avatar. Maybe it's related to that, maybe that picture is well-known as an aid to vomiting among eating disorder circles.

No the statistic cited earlier was if I recall correctly that people born to rich parents are only 21% more likely to be wealthy adults than people born to poor parents. This is not so bad when you think about it.
It's pretty bad. It means that even rich people rarely get rich. Which means use poorer folk are pretty much nailed to the plank already.

I have to say, I sometimes feel a little sick looking at the bouffant hairstyle in your avatar. Maybe it's related to that, maybe that picture is well-known as an aid to vomiting among eating disorder circles.

Heh. :)

Well feel free to go to www.RaderPrograms.com and control the temptation to vomit. Unintentional disorders are still disorders.

No the statistic cited earlier was if I recall correctly that people born to rich parents are only 21% more likely to be wealthy adults than people born to poor parents. This is not so bad when you think about it.

You don't recall correctly, or, rather, you misunderstand how percentages work. People born to rich parents are 22 times more likely to be wealthy adults than people born to poor families. That is not a meritocracy by any sane definition.

I don't even understand why the rich have a real problem with paying taxes.

I would say the same problem some people (not CthulhuFhtagn) has with paying taxes, levys,fees etc.

I would say the same problem everyone has with paying taxes, levys,fees etc.

I have none whatsoever.

I have none whatsoever.

Good for you, do you really want me to change it it to some people rich and poor?

I love that it's friggin' Leisure Suit Larry.

Yeah, nothing says 'Prosperity' like taking financial advice from a guy who can't even score with an unconscious woman.

:p

He also definitely refers to himself as 'Big Man' too.

No doubt.

I just keep getting eating disorder ads.

I'm female and I keep getting viagra adds.

You're avatar looks like a guy I knew at UCR in the '70s. Were you ever there?

Yeah, nothing says 'Prosperity' like taking financial advice from a guy who can't even score with an unconscious woman.

:p

He got some major tail in the first one. That's the only one I ever finished, so I don't know about the rest.

Good for you, do you really want me to change it it to some people rich and poor?

Yes. Yes I do.

Yes. Yes I do.

Done, but I am saying that while the rich may complain about paying taxes so do the poor.

You don't recall correctly, or, rather, you misunderstand how percentages work. People born to rich parents are 22 times more likely to be wealthy adults than people born to poor families. That is not a meritocracy by any sane definition.

I think we are looking at the same info but emphasizing what it represents differently. Neither of us is wrong.

I think we are looking at the same info but emphasizing what it represents differently. Neither of us is wrong.

Actually, you are wrong and Poli is right.

You wanna know what grinds my gears?
people who don't know how to drive standard?

You don't recall correctly, or, rather, you misunderstand how percentages work. People born to rich parents are 22 times more likely to be wealthy adults than people born to poor families. That is not a meritocracy by any sane definition.

I think we are looking at the same info but emphasizing what it represents differently. Neither of us is wrong.

22x is, if I'm not mistaken, 2200%, but it's okay, you were only off by 2179% ;P

people who don't know how to drive standard?

A bit late there, that's about the 10th joke on this thread to that effect (affect? idk, I'm horrible with umm... what are they called? Homophones?)

A bit late there, that's about the 10th joke on this thread to that effect (affect? idk, I'm horrible with umm... what are they called? Homophones?)

:( I didn't have access to the interwebs these past three days...

err... howabout a grinder? has that been used?

except that's not how our tax system works, at all.

I never said it was. I just said I was opposed to that system.

CM is, if I recall correctly, 13. He has never paid taxes.

It's just a statement he's learned, the same statement I feel many people make when it comes to Democrats.

*Arms forward, dribble from mouth*

"Taxesssssss"
1. 14 now.:D

2. What in the world are you talking about? *Backs away*

22x is, if I'm not mistaken, 2200%, but it's okay, you were only off by 2179% ;P
No. We are both right. The children of the top 5% wealthiest families are 22% likely to become adults in the top 5% wealthiest families. The poorest are only 1% likely. A child born into wealth has a 21% greater chance of becoming in the top 5% of wealthy families than a poor child who only has a 1% chance. 22 -1 = 21. At the same time, a child of a rich family has a 2200 percent increased likelihood of becoming a wealthy adult than the child of a poor couple because 22 x 1= 22

Have you seen that ad McCain is putting out saying that Obama is intending to raise taxes? OF COURSE he is, for the top 5%, who will be like "Oh no! Now we have to give more money to the government so the less fortunate are given an equal chance!" The ad makes it seem like he's raising taxes for lower and lower-middle class citizens. That kind of manipulation pisses me off.

Wait, lemme say it for you:
Welcome to politics

"the less fortunate are given an equal chance!"? How is giving other people's money to the "less fortunate" giving them an equal chance? An equal chance to what? That is the redistribution of wealth pure and simple. How well has that work for the working class of other socialist countries?

The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes. The top 1% pays 39% of the taxes. I would say those evil rich pay their fair share. Not to mention they are the ones who invest and grow our economy but I know most would not let these facts get in the way of good class warfare. If you wish to know the source of these numbers it would be the IRS.

It should be noted that to be in the top 1% of wage earners you need to make more than $290,000. I guess those evil small business owners who will fall into that 5% should just suck it up, huh?

You know what grinds my gears? Uninformed socialists.

"the less fortunate are given an equal chance!"? How is giving other people's money to the "less fortunate" giving them an equal chance? An equal chance to what? That is the redistribution of wealth pure and simple. How well has that work for the working class of other socialist countries?

The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes. The top 1% pays 39% of the taxes. I would say those evil rich pay their fair share. Not to mention they are the ones who invest and grow our economy but I know most would not let these facts get in the way of good class warfare. If you wish to know the source of these numbers it would be the IRS.

It should be noted that to be in the top 1% of wage earners you need to make more than $290,000. I guess those evil small business owners who will fall into that 5% should just suck it up, huh?

You know what grinds my gears? Uninformed socialists.
:Dapparently a smiley isn't enough characters

:Dapparently a smiley isn't enough characters

I love it when people have uninformed arguments. It gives me a laugh.:D

"the less fortunate are given an equal chance!"? How is giving other people's money to the "less fortunate" giving them an equal chance? An equal chance to what? That is the redistribution of wealth pure and simple. How well has that work for the working class of other socialist countries?

The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes. The top 1% pays 39% of the taxes. I would say those evil rich pay their fair share. Not to mention they are the ones who invest and grow our economy but I know most would not let these facts get in the way of good class warfare. If you wish to know the source of these numbers it would be the IRS.

It should be noted that to be in the top 1% of wage earners you need to make more than $290,000. I guess those evil small business owners who will fall into that 5% should just suck it up, huh?

You know what grinds my gears? Uninformed socialists.

Just claiming 'the IRS' said it isn't actually sourcing your material. Show us your figures. Otherwise I can just say all your numbers are lies, and claim the IRS said so, right?

I notice one or two problems - I don't know whether you just don't unserstand, or you are deliberately trying to hide something.

First - saying that the top 1% of wage earners (which is a questionable term, anyway) pay 33% of the taxes, is either wrong or deceptive, on a number of levels.

1) You're talking about INCOME taxes, not all taxes.

2) The top 1% of the 'wage earners' might well pay 33% of all the income taxes, but they also earn somewhere close to 1/5th of ALL the income.

3) Similalry - while you point out that the top 50% pay almost 97% of the income taxes, you overlook the fact that they also take almost 90% of ALL the income. The figures aren't NEARLY as disproportionate as you make them seem.

4) You ignore the fact that 'progressive' taxation is based on the assumption of basic expenditure spending. If the cost of living is $15,000 a year, taxing someone on 16,000 the same as you would tax someone on 160,000, then you are actually disproportionately taxing the poorer person massively more than the welathier person, despite the fact that the income is slanted in exactly the opposite direction.

You know what grinds my gears? Uninformed capitalists.

"the less fortunate are given an equal chance!"? How is giving other people's money to the "less fortunate" giving them an equal chance? An equal chance to what? That is the redistribution of wealth pure and simple. How well has that work for the working class of other socialist countries?

The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the taxes. The top 1% pays 39% of the taxes. I would say those evil rich pay their fair share. Not to mention they are the ones who invest and grow our economy but I know most would not let these facts get in the way of good class warfare. If you wish to know the source of these numbers it would be the IRS.

It should be noted that to be in the top 1% of wage earners you need to make more than $290,000. I guess those evil small business owners who will fall into that 5% should just suck it up, huh?

You know what grinds my gears? Uninformed socialists.

You know what Grave n idle just said? Well he basically c+p'ed that from his other arguement. Read before you bring up the same arguements as people before you did only to get swatted down.



Which is irrelevent, and wrong.

First: They (according to your source) pay 71% of all INCOME taxes, not all taxes. (You accuse others of not doing their research, but didn't even read your own source?)

Second: Declaring tht they "earned 39 percent of the pretax income" is actually somewhat meaningless. What does 'earned' mean? What - then - does that say about UN-earned income. What is the parallel between TOTAL pretax income, and total income tax burder?

Third: Pretax income figures are easy to doctor. All you have to do, is change the nature of the income, how and when it will be taxed, etc. And - what you're referring to is the income that is accounted for by mechanisms accounted within this country. Any 'earned income' that is moving straight to an offshore account might not even show up in such a study.

His previous arguement.

Acutally, I'm sorry, looks like he read up on it a bit since, but his first point was still the same.

:( I didn't have access to the interwebs these past three days...

err... howabout a grinder? has that been used?

You have my sincerest apologies (even though your avatar still creeps me out O.o)

And no, I don't think a grinder has, but it'd be pretty tricky, unless it was a daimond-edged grinder.

Yeah, Fair Tax is anything but fair...Republicans say they want to lower taxes, unfortunately its for the Super Wealthy and Large Corporate Interests....

Uncle Sam aint takin less, once he doesnt have the revenue from the Wealthy hes gonna gut the lower class...he has to have sustenance, and doesnt care where it comes from...

I'm female and I keep getting viagra adds.
To slip in some guys bowl of pasta obviously.
You're avatar looks like a guy I knew at UCR in the '70s. Were you ever there?
I wasn't even an idea yet.
You old folk and your reminisces.

Bob Ross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Ross)