Gravitymaster 0 #51 November 22, 2006 QuoteHere you go: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 I'd be willing to pick up my share of the 4% of taxes the bottom 50% pay just to shut up the incessant whining about it. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #52 November 22, 2006 QuoteDespite the fact that "the top 1% of earners pay 37% of all the federal individual income taxes collected. The bottom 50% of earners pay just 3% of those taxes." Most liberals that I've spoken to think top income earners show pay more taxes. OPM I have no issue with those numbers if the top 1% also makes 37% of the money and the bottom 50% makes 3% of the money. It's progressive, but at least we'd all pay the same percentage. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #53 November 22, 2006 QuoteI have no issue with those numbers if the top 1% also makes 37% of the money and the bottom 50% makes 3% of the money. But that's not the case. Top earners pay a higher percentage tax than everyone else. I think their overall tax rate is about 100% higher than the average. And yet, many people think those top taxpayers should pay more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #54 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteI have no issue with those numbers if the top 1% also makes 37% of the money and the bottom 50% makes 3% of the money. But that's not the case. Top earners pay a higher percentage tax than everyone else. I think their overall tax rate is about 100% higher than the average. And yet, many people think those top taxpayers should pay more. The wealthiest 1 percent of US households owns roughly 33.4% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of households owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of households owns less than 1%.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #55 November 22, 2006 QuoteThe wealthiest 1 percent of US households owns roughly 33.4% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of households owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of households owns less than 1%. I know your position on taxation of held wealth - it's a different discussion, though an interesting one. But the question is about yearly gross earnings vs yearly taxes paid. Currently, we tax based on how much you made this year, not how much you already had in the bank from last year and before. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #56 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe wealthiest 1 percent of US households owns roughly 33.4% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of households owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of households owns less than 1%. I know your position on taxation of held wealth - it's a different discussion, though an interesting one. But the question is about yearly gross earnings vs yearly taxes paid. Currently, we tax based on how much you made this year, not how much you already had in the bank from last year and before. Roughly one third, 32.5%, of all income in the US was earned by those households in the top five percent. Approximately one fifth, 20.58%, of all income was earned by the top 2.67%, those households earning more than $200,000 a year. Overall the aggregate income distributing tilts toward the top, despite the fact that households with middle-range annual incomes ranging from $50,000 to $75,000 earned roughly one fourth, 25.11% of all income. As the percentage of middle-range income households is roughly one-fourth of the population, this particular income group's share of income is roughly equal to their representation in the general population. The bottom 6.37%, however only earned 0.27% of all income. Source: US Census Bureau... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #57 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteHere you go: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 I'd be willing to pick up my share of the 4% of taxes the bottom 50% pay just to shut up the incessant whining about it. - I believe the IRS accepts personal checks.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #58 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe wealthiest 1 percent of US households owns roughly 33.4% of the nation's net worth, the top 10% of households owns over 71%, and the bottom 40% of households owns less than 1%. I know your position on taxation of held wealth - it's a different discussion, though an interesting one. But the question is about yearly gross earnings vs yearly taxes paid. Currently, we tax based on how much you made this year, not how much you already had in the bank from last year and before. We already pay tax on personal and real property - at the state level in almost every state. The tax data he supplied exclude state income and sales taxes which tend to be less progressive than federal income taxes (to the point of not being progressive at all in some places). Also excluded are Medicare and social security taxes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #59 November 22, 2006 QuoteRoughly one third, 32.5%, of all income in the US was earned by those households in the top five percent. ........ The bottom 6.37%, however only earned 0.27% of all income. Source: US Census Bureau Thanks, so that talks about who makes what, but still doesn't tie out how much is paid vs how much is made, it's just more about which level makes how much. so then the top 5% of people that make 32.5% of all income pays 32.5% of all taxes? It doesn't say, does it? I suspect the net tax burden is higher than 32.5% and the bottom 6.37% the earn 0.27% of all income paid 0.27% of all taxes? it doesn't say, does it. In fact, this group likely has a negative tax rate (they are supplemented by the government and pay zero taxes) See, I want to tax the income, not the person - pretty well have a flat tax rate. That's what I think would be fair. It's still progressive in dollars and that's the leveling factor. And everybody now has a fiscal ownership in their citizenship and realizes that everything costs something, nothing is really free. Talk about simplifying the economic models - behavior analysis would simplify greatly. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #60 November 22, 2006 QuoteWe already pay tax on personal and real property - at the state level in almost every state. right, wealth is taxed, in addition to earnings. Isn't that your original problem? Or is it just a "more is better" simple argument? But wait, we are getting off track of the original statement - one about stereotyping people of certain political persuasions based on their extremists assholes in D.C. (but not doing the same with the other party) and then making blanket statements in detriment to both parties and those regular citizens decent enough to try and participate in politics. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #61 November 22, 2006 QuoteThe tax data he supplied exclude state income and sales taxes I'm not sure how one thing (State taxes) can be excluded from something that is completely different (Federal Income Taxes). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #62 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe tax data he supplied exclude state income and sales taxes I'm not sure how one thing (State taxes) can be excluded from something that is completely different (Federal Income Taxes).According to data from the Tax Policy Center, taxpayers who made more than $1 million received an average federal income tax break of $123,592 in 2004. This compares to $383, the average tax break in 2004 for the two-thirds of taxpayers who make less than $50,000 per year. ______________________________________ _____________Do the #'s for me on that one will ya. I'm still researchingI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livetofall 0 #63 November 22, 2006 No gravity, I think we should tax them damn rich folks 80% so they will get the hell out of our country and their damn factories, offices, and jobs too! www.911missinglinks.com the definitive truth of 9/11..the who and why, not how You can handle the TRUTH www.theforbiddentruth.net Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #64 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteHere you go: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 I'd be willing to pick up my share of the 4% of taxes the bottom 50% pay just to shut up the incessant whining about it. - I believe the IRS accepts personal checks. Great, as soon as the incessant whining stops, let me know and I'll gladly write the check. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #65 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe tax data he supplied exclude state income and sales taxes I'm not sure how one thing (State taxes) can be excluded from something that is completely different (Federal Income Taxes). A dollar is a dollar and they are all the same color. Why just pick on one type of tax for consideration? You know.... exclude taxes paid by rich people, then the poor pay far more than their fair share.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #66 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHere you go: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 I'd be willing to pick up my share of the 4% of taxes the bottom 50% pay just to shut up the incessant whining about it. - I believe the IRS accepts personal checks. Great, as soon as the incessant whining stops, let me know and I'll gladly write the check. You said you'd pay to shut them up, not that they should shut up to make you pay.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #67 November 22, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHere you go: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 I'd be willing to pick up my share of the 4% of taxes the bottom 50% pay just to shut up the incessant whining about it. - I believe the IRS accepts personal checks. Great, as soon as the incessant whining stops, let me know and I'll gladly write the check. You said you'd pay to shut them up, not that they should shut up to make you pay. I still stand by what I said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #68 November 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe tax data he supplied exclude state income and sales taxes I'm not sure how one thing (State taxes) can be excluded from something that is completely different (Federal Income Taxes). A dollar is a dollar and they are all the same color. Why just pick on one type of tax for consideration? You know.... exclude taxes paid by rich people, then the poor pay far more than their fair share. I see. For any topic discussed, ALL possibly tangential aspects must be included. Otherwise, you see them as being "excluded". Do you know the meaning of "exclude"? Do you understand the meaning of "logical fallacy"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #69 November 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe tax data he supplied exclude state income and sales taxes I'm not sure how one thing (State taxes) can be excluded from something that is completely different (Federal Income Taxes). A dollar is a dollar and they are all the same color. Why just pick on one type of tax for consideration? You know.... exclude taxes paid by rich people, then the poor pay far more than their fair share. I see. For any topic discussed, ALL possibly tangential aspects must be included. Otherwise, you see them as being "excluded". Do you know the meaning of "exclude"? Do you understand the meaning of "logical fallacy"? If you can only make your point about taxes by excluding certain taxes, then your point is not a very good one.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #70 November 27, 2006 It's interesting to go back and re-read threads. All too often, people use bullshit, diversionary tactics to try and refute other's points. I wonder why so many rely on dishonest methods in what seem to be efforts to divert any given discussion, instead of directly responding to the posts/posters they disagree with. Are they just trolling? Or is this all they have? I honestly don't know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #71 November 28, 2006 and is the pot black? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #72 November 29, 2006 Today's study that will get people going - psychotics are more likely to support Bush. ----------------------------- November 23, 2006 By Andy Bromage . . . . Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush. Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush. But before you go thinking all your conservative friends are psychotic, listen to Lohse’s explanation. “Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’” The study was an advocacy project of sorts, designed to register mentally ill voters and encourage them to go to the polls, Lohse explains. The Bush trend was revealed later on. The study used Modified General Assessment Functioning, or MGAF, a 100-point scale that measures the functioning of disabled patients. A second scale, developed by Rakfeldt, was also used. Knowledge of current issues, government and politics were assessed on a 12-item scale devised by the study authors. “Bush supporters had significantly less knowledge about current issues, government and politics than those who supported Kerry,” the study says. http://www.ctnow.com/custom/nmm/newhavenadvocate/hce-nha-1123-nh48bushbash48.artnov23,0,1695911.story Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #73 November 29, 2006 Interesting snippet...thanks As for the deal with Kerry - you have to do a lot more research, when the issue changes every week/poll/speech.... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #74 November 29, 2006 So can we then discern that people who vote for Bush are psychotic? JK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #75 November 29, 2006 QuoteInteresting snippet...thanks As for the deal with Kerry - you have to do a lot more research, when the issue changes every week/poll/speech.... Yes, as opposed to reading about Teddy Roosevelt and Hoover and using that as a contemporary guideline. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
