Turns out it IS all the fault of the rich. Proof inside!

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: bjc112

top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes

That's the most important stat to me...

96%

What percentage of the wealth in America do they have?

 

[Vic]

You will not win an argument with me by putting words in my mouth, nor will I debate with a fool who can only use insults. Your "impression of my perspective" is pretty much pure ad hom. You know nothing of me.

 

[Tom]

top 50% earns 86.19% of the wages
top 10% earns 43.11%
top 1% earns 17.53%

Now compare that to
top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes
top 10% pay 65%
top 1% pay 34%

Yup - "fair"
_________________________________

There are two reasons for these figures, first based on what you say they only include income tax, which as I already said doesn't represent the full tax burden. Therefore they are meaningless to figuring out what is fair.

Secondly, the bottom 50%, which would pay 4% of income taxes, includes people who don't pay any income taxes, rightly so IMHO, because if they did pay taxes they couldn't live and would die in which case they still wouldn't pay taxes. By working and not paying taxes they are contributing more than if they didn't work at all.

Thirdly, I would like a better breakdown of the upper 10% and 1% earning categories, somehow I wonder if there aren't certain categories of assets or income accumulation that aren't really being accounted for in these figures..

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bjc112

top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes

That's the most important stat to me...

96%

What percentage of the wealth in America do they have?

Why should people be taxed for saving money and increasing the money supply in this country by a huge amount?

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

These figures, first based on what you say they only include income tax, which as I already said doesn't represent the full tax burden. Therefore they are meaningless to figuring out what is fair.

Secondly, the bottom 50%, which would pay 4% of income taxes, includes people who don't pay any income taxes, rightly so IMHO, because if they did pay taxes they couldn't live and would die in which case they still wouldn't pay taxes. By working and not paying taxes they are contributing more than if they didn't work at all.

Thirdly, I would like a better breakdown of the upper 10% and 1% earning categories, somehow I wonder if there aren't certain categories of assets or income accumulation that aren't really being accounted for in these figures..

Yeah, keep going on your witch hunt. There must be SOME small class of people who steal their money, so we can claim that all "rich" people steal money and increase their taxes even more.

 

[Tom]

top 50% earns 86.19% of the wages
top 10% earns 43.11%
top 1% earns 17.53%

Now compare that to
top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes
top 10% pay 65%
top 1% pay 34%

Yup - "fair"

I'm still trying to come to grip with these numbers..

this means 50-90 percentile group earns 43%, pays 31 % ?

Guess that's the group to be in. :light:

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn

Yet, contradictorily, you sugget that the poor deserve to be poor because they are stupid and undisciplined (grossely exagerated, I know, but that's my impression of your perspective) and cannot meet the cahallenge of obtaining wealth. Hmm... Well, I can think of one way of recoupling the cost of obtaining wealth, increase the hours of the work week! Yeah, that'd be great! Law's stipulating the peramiters of paying employees for overtime are "silly and outdated." Let's kick the middle class while their down. Lazy asses.

What does the middle class have to do with the points you're making? You first talk about the rich, then the poor, and somehow the middle class is the conclusion?

In any case, increasing the hours in the work week is exactly what has been done. If people don't want to work for a living, they can sit on their asses all day and let people who want to work do the job. Stupid labor monopolizers. I work plenty of overtime and never get paid a penny for it. If I work more than 8 hours, I get 8 hours worth of pay. Only if I work more than 10 hours do I get overtime pay only for the amount I work over 10 hours in a day. If you want to stop being poor, you have to work.

Now, as for reducing deficit spending, you will never hear an argument from me suggesting otherwise. Now go tell that to GW.

Then you know very little about where money and wealth come from.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

this means 50-90 percentile group earns 43%, pays 31 % ?

Guess that's the group to be in. :light:

Tell me again that increased taxation of higher incomes doesn't make people avoid creating more wealth.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

These figures, first based on what you say they only include income tax, which as I already said doesn't represent the full tax burden. Therefore they are meaningless to figuring out what is fair.

Secondly, the bottom 50%, which would pay 4% of income taxes, includes people who don't pay any income taxes, rightly so IMHO, because if they did pay taxes they couldn't live and would die in which case they still wouldn't pay taxes. By working and not paying taxes they are contributing more than if they didn't work at all.

Thirdly, I would like a better breakdown of the upper 10% and 1% earning categories, somehow I wonder if there aren't certain categories of assets or income accumulation that aren't really being accounted for in these figures..

Yeah, keep going on your witch hunt. There must be SOME small class of people who steal their money, so we can claim that all "rich" people steal money and increase their taxes even more.

No, I'm refering to things like dividends and exotic ways of hiding income that are beyond my comprehension, and not because of a witch hunt, but because if those kinds of income are excluded it makes our discussion of "fairness" difficult. I don't claim to know if such other categories exist, I am asking ?

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

Vic, you're right, the money is not piled up under some guys mattress; it's earning money on itself. It's earning more money for individual who has invested it, supposedly to the benift of all the little people who will prosper under the "trickle down" economy. Ok, man hoards wealth, man invests hoarded wealth, man becomes wealthier on account of man's business interest outsourcing employment to Bangledesh and Thailand; less cost, more profit! .Mr Smith and his 2.5 children may be out of a job still but, but at least they can by a DVD player for less than $50! Now if only they weren't acruing debt so darn fast that unemployment can't even keep up with the interest rates on his several maxed out credit cards. Of course, he's a f*cking idiot to get laid off in the first place; now he knows better than to work at some podunk VC dog and pony show like Enron, or Nortell, or Lucent., etc... Double the idiot factor for putting grociery bills on his Visa. LOL! Doofus! I think he could proably afford to lose a few pounds anyway, lazy ass that he is. I bet he was a day-trader, too! What an un-american reject!

The point is, no matter how you spin the art of statistics and neo-con, anti-american rhetoric, the wealthy should be taxed more than the poor. They can afford to pay down the presidents asinine, abusive economic "policy" because they can afford to while maintainging their ludacrisly high standard of living. You think it's easy being impovrished then sepparate yourself from your wealth, your experience, your contacts, your wealthy relatives and your superior education and try to live like everybody else does.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

No, I'm refering to things like dividends and exotic ways of hiding income that are beyond my comprehension, and not because of a witch hunt, but because if those kinds of income are excluded it makes our discussion of "fairness" difficult. I don't claim to know if such other categories exist, I am asking ?

Dividends are so evil, yeah. Go give up your pension plan, like those whose plans invested in Enron did and then we'll see what you think about dividends. Oh wait, you don't even KNOW what a dividend is so you won't be able to know what reducing taxes on them will achieve. Many of the recent accounting scandals can be at least indirectly blamed on the ludicrously high dividend tax rates that we've had for the past couple decades.

Look at a 1040 and see what is taxable and what is deductible and at what percentages.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

No, I'm refering to things like dividends and exotic ways of hiding income that are beyond my comprehension, and not because of a witch hunt, but because if those kinds of income are excluded it makes our discussion of "fairness" difficult. I don't claim to know if such other categories exist, I am asking ?

Dividends are so evil, yeah. Go give up your pension plan, like those whose plans invested in Enron did and then we'll see what you think about dividends. Oh wait, you don't even KNOW what a dividend is so you won't be able to know what reducing taxes on them will achieve. Many of the recent accounting scandals can be at least indirectly blamed on the ludicrously high dividend tax rates that we've had for the past couple decades.

Look at a 1040 and see what is taxable and what is deductible and at what percentages.

I did not say dividends were evil. We are supposedly discussing tax "fairness", how do you propose to discuss tax "fairness" if some kinds of income, are not included in the discussion ?

And please explain how insults add to a discussion..if you actually want to have a discussion.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
Vic, you're right, the money is not piled up under some guys mattress; it's earning money on itself. It's earning more money for individual who has invested it, supposedly to the benift of all the little people who will prosper under the "trickle down" economy. Ok, man hoards wealth, man invests hoarded wealth, man becomes wealthier on account of man's business interest outsourcing employment to Bangledesh and Thailand; less cost, more profit! .Mr Smith and his 2.5 children may be out of a job still but, but at least they can by a DVD player for less than $50! Now if only they weren't acruing debt so darn fast that unemployment can't even keep up with the interest rates on his several maxed out credit cards. Of course, he's a f*cking idiot to get laid off in the first place; now he knows better than to work at some podunk VC dog and pony show like Enron, or Nortell, or Lucent., etc... Double the idiot factor for putting grociery bills on his Visa. LOL! Doofus! I think he could proably afford to lose a few pounds anyway, lazy ass that he is. I bet he was a day-trader, too! What an un-american reject!

The point is, no matter how you spin the art of statistics and neo-con, anti-american rhetoric, the wealthy should be taxed more than the poor. They can afford to pay down the presidents asinine, abusive economic "policy" because they can afford to while maintainging their ludacrisly high standard of living. You think it's easy being impovrished then sepparate yourself from your wealth, your experience, your contacts, your wealthy relatives and your superior education and try to live like everybody else does.

Wow. That's the most ignorantly bilious rant I've seen in these forums. The Visa card was made possible by your "evil" money saver. He'd be starving if the "rich" person didn't "leech" off the "poor" person.

Go back to being lazy at doing work, finding people who need work done, and learning how to do some work. "Everybody" isn't an ignorant, lazy, anti-social person. Your subsidy for living will be graciously paid by the "rich". "Impoverished" my ass.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
top 50% earns 86.19% of the wages
top 10% earns 43.11%
top 1% earns 17.53%

Now compare that to
top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes
top 10% pay 65%
top 1% pay 34%

Yup - "fair"
_________________________________

There are two reasons for these figures, first based on what you say they only include income tax, which as I already said doesn't represent the full tax burden. Therefore they are meaningless to figuring out what is fair.

Secondly, the bottom 50%, which would pay 4% of income taxes, includes people who don't pay any income taxes, rightly so IMHO, because if they did pay taxes they couldn't live and would die in which case they still wouldn't pay taxes. By working and not paying taxes they are contributing more than if they didn't work at all.

Thirdly, I would like a better breakdown of the upper 10% and 1% earning categories, somehow I wonder if there aren't certain categories of assets or income accumulation that aren't really being accounted for in these figures..

Again - you don't answer any of the questions and you try to skew the facts. I presented the FACTS of who pays what and earns what according to their rank percentage. You have presented NO facts, only your feelings and skewed logic.
1 - Yes they are "only" income taxes. Can you present the break down of all the "other" taxes by income group? please share.
2- the bottom 50% of wage earners. These people have jobs, pay taxes, and in some cases get FREE money back from the Treasury due to loopholes like EIC and the like. So yes - some of them don't pay "any" taxes...do you think that is "fair"? How about the ones that get FREE money from the Treasury? "fair" yet?
3- huh? why would income accumulation or assets make a difference that help your argument?

CkG

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

I did not say dividends were evil. We are supposedly discussing tax "fairness", how do you propose to discuss tax "fairness" if some kinds of income, are not included in the discussion ?

And please explain how insults add to a discussion..if you actually want to have a discussion.

Please explain how the topic of insults came up here. If you want your statements to be respected, don't rant against things you claim to not understand. Maybe I misinterpreted what you said, but I didn't insult you.

There are a billion and a half different kinds of income as far as tax consequences go. For example, NYC taxes allow you to deduct some profits from investments in small businesses based in Lower Manhattan as a 9/11 relief. You'll have to read federal, state, and local tax codes to really get the full picture, and even then, you might not see what people in other localities will be taxed on.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
top 50% earns 86.19% of the wages
top 10% earns 43.11%
top 1% earns 17.53%

Now compare that to
top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes
top 10% pay 65%
top 1% pay 34%

Yup - "fair"

I'm still trying to come to grip with these numbers..

this means 50-90 percentile group earns 43%, pays 31 % ?

Guess that's the group to be in. :light:

Do you make more than ~45K? if you do you are in that bracket. Heh - and you thought you were middle class Buahaha YOU are "rich"

Note: I have no idea what you make but I most certainly think that 45K is middle class.

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bjc112

top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes

That's the most important stat to me...

96%

What percentage of the wealth in America do they have?

Why should people be taxed for saving money and increasing the money supply in this country by a huge amount?

Beats me, I was just asking a fscking question. Stop being so defensive for the Rich. I would think that if they have less than 96% of the wealth then it might be a good argument for them not paying more taxes than they do!

 

[Red Dawn]

BTW, if I really wanted to steal from the rich I definately wouldn't want the Government involved!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bjc112

top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes

That's the most important stat to me...

96%

What percentage of the wealth in America do they have?

Why should people be taxed for saving money and increasing the money supply in this country by a huge amount?

Beats me, I was just asking a fscking question. Stop being so defensive for the Rich. I would think that if they have less than 96% of the wealth then it might be a good argument for them paying more taxes than they do!

Well, they only earn 86% of the income. I guess that is a start.
But I'm not "defending" the rich perse - I'm just asking why they should be the target due to overspending, I thought it was supposed to be "fair"?

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: bjc112

top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes

That's the most important stat to me...

96%

What percentage of the wealth in America do they have?

Why should people be taxed for saving money and increasing the money supply in this country by a huge amount?

Beats me, I was just asking a fscking question. Stop being so defensive for the Rich. I would think that if they have less than 96% of the wealth then it might be a good argument for them paying more taxes than they do!

Well, they only earn 86% of the income. I guess that is a start.
But I'm not "defending" the rich perse - I'm just asking why they should be the target due to overspending, I thought it was supposed to be "fair"?

CkG

Well to be totally honest with you I am not to concerned with being fair. I only am concerned in what's in it for me. If I were Rich I would want to pay the least amount of taxes as possible and I would hire a good accountant to make sure I did. Unfortunately I'm not Rich and I can't afford that accountant to help me pay less than my fair share. I'm surprised that those who are so wealthy that they can afford such services actually pay the percentage that they do! I guess they are just better Americans than the rest...yeah right!!LOL!!!

 

[Tom]

"Again - you don't answer any of the questions and you try to skew the facts. I presented the FACTS of who pays what and earns what according to their rank percentage. You have presented NO facts, only your feelings and skewed logic.
1 - Yes they are "only" income taxes. Can you present the break down of all the "other" taxes by income group? please share.
2- the bottom 50% of wage earners. These people have jobs, pay taxes, and in some cases get FREE money back from the Treasury due to loopholes like EIC and the like. So yes - some of them don't pay "any" taxes...do you think that is "fair"? How about the ones that get FREE money from the Treasury? "fair" yet?
3- huh? why would income accumulation or assets make a difference that help your argument?"
_____________________________________________________________________________

1.- not without some effort, but what I can do is point out that the figures you present are incomplete which makes using them as a indicator of tax fairness or unfairness inadequate, if we want to deal with tthe real world.

2.- it isn't true they don't pay taxes, the taxes they pay just don't show up in the income tax numbers you posted. I don't know if EIC is fair, I think it's practical though, since it encourages work.

3.- I asked about those things not to help my argument, but out of curiousity and a belief that we can't begin the discussion about fairness until we have all the information and have come to some conclusion about what "fair" means.

I also don't understand what role "fairness" has in capitalism, and why "fairness" is even desirable other than as an abstract concept. I keep hearing arguments against raising taxes for the wealthy because it isn't fair, but on some level I don't understand how there could be wealthy people if the underlying guiding principal is fairness. Not that I'm against capitalism, I just don't see the connection to fairness.

For example, in order to make a profit, it's necessary to deliberatley sell something to someone for more than it cost you to make it, right ? How is that "Fair" ? Not arguing against making a profit, just wondering about your feelings about fairness.

another example-If my kid has macaroni and cheese and yours has steak, is that "fair" ? How about if my kid has nothing and yours has lobster ?

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

Lol! Ok, let me get this straight. I deliberately chose characteristics for my illustration that would accentuate the disadvantaged, and your reponse is that having no income and living off of credit cards does not qualify as impoverished... am I missing something? Well, I certainly missed the whole "benevolent" creditor aspect. Good call, NEVER would've thought of that... Because Chase is in it for the little guy, that's why they offer cards with a 25% finance rate towards those who've already proved to be incapable of handling finances (indicated thorugh their massive debt and numerous defaults.) Federal law would prevent said company from enfocing such an enormous rate but have been allowed to do so on the basis that the customer is considered a liability. It's not because they just trying to squezz the last few drops out of said customer before their financial existance is completely obliterated, the creditors are in it for the little guy who can't put food on the table without borrowing money. Baseball is dead, long live apathy.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"Again - you don't answer any of the questions and you try to skew the facts. I presented the FACTS of who pays what and earns what according to their rank percentage. You have presented NO facts, only your feelings and skewed logic.
1 - Yes they are "only" income taxes. Can you present the break down of all the "other" taxes by income group? please share.
2- the bottom 50% of wage earners. These people have jobs, pay taxes, and in some cases get FREE money back from the Treasury due to loopholes like EIC and the like. So yes - some of them don't pay "any" taxes...do you think that is "fair"? How about the ones that get FREE money from the Treasury? "fair" yet?
3- huh? why would income accumulation or assets make a difference that help your argument?"
_____________________________________________________________________________

1.- not without some effort, but what I can do is point out that the figures you present are incomplete which makes using them as a indicator of tax fairness or unfairness inadequate, if we want to deal with tthe real world.

2.- it isn't true they don't pay taxes, the taxes they pay just don't show up in the income tax numbers you posted. I don't know if EIC is fair, I think it's practical though, since it encourages work.

3.- I asked about those things not to help my argument, but out of curiousity and a belief that we can't begin the discussion about fairness until we have all the information and have come to some conclusion about what "fair" means.

I also don't understand what role "fairness" has in capitalism, and why "fairness" is even desirable other than as an abstract concept. I keep hearing arguments against raising taxes for the wealthy because it isn't fair, but on some level I don't understand how there could be wealthy people if the underlying guiding principal is fairness. Not that I'm against capitalism, I just don't see the connection to fairness.

For example, in order to make a profit, it's necessary to deliberatley sell something to someone for more than it cost you to make it, right ? How is that "Fair" ? Not arguing against making a profit, just wondering about your feelings about fairness.

another example-If my kid has macaroni and cheese and yours has steak, is that "fair" ? How about if my kid has nothing and yours has lobster ?

When I see a Rich Man suffering I will be gladly to offer him any assistance that I can. If he needed a ride I would give it to him. If he was being assaulted I would call the Police, if he needed to score Prescription Drugs illegally I would give him Rush Limbaughs Maid's Phone #, if he needed water I would drain my cars radiator to give him water and if he was bleeding I would offer him one of my Old Ladies Tampax! I have nothing against the Rich. In fact I would rather hangout with them that I would the poor. The problem is that they wont have anything to do with me because I am not Rich. Bastages!

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
top 50% earns 86.19% of the wages
top 10% earns 43.11%
top 1% earns 17.53%

Now compare that to
top 50% pay 96% of all income taxes
top 10% pay 65%
top 1% pay 34%

Yup - "fair"

I'm still trying to come to grip with these numbers..

this means 50-90 percentile group earns 43%, pays 31 % ?

Guess that's the group to be in. :light:

Do you make more than ~45K? if you do you are in that bracket. Heh - and you thought you were middle class Buahaha YOU are "rich"

Note: I have no idea what you make but I most certainly think that 45K is middle class.

CkG

Yea, I just thought it was kind of interesting, maybe it's a sign that Congress actually does try to pay attention to the "middle class"..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well to be totally honest with you I am not to concerned with being fair. I only am concerned in what's in it for me. If I were Rich I would want to pay the least amount of taxes as possible and I would hire a good accountant to make sure I did. Unfortunately I'm not Rich and I can't afford that accountant to help me pay less than my fair share. I'm surprised that those who are so wealthy that they can afford such services actually pay the percentage that they do! I guess they are just better Americans than the rest...yeah right!!LOL!!!

Well, I'm not the one who is ranting about the rich not paying their "fair share" and I'm glad to see you aren't either. It's the leftists(like LIEberman) who think the answer is to keep piling the financial "burden" on the rich because they need to "pay their fair share", that get me annoyed and they still can't answer the question of what "fair share" is. They just retort with percentage of income BS and cite some ultrarich scenario.

CkG