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

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski
It seems to me that these subjects always get dumbed down and ignore the complexity. As a result, we get a lot of meaingless statistics, moral judgements(fairness), weak analogies, and words such as "Socialism" get thrown around with wild abandon. Let us consider a few things:

1) Is Income Tax the only Tax?
2) Are there taxes that one class pays, but not the other?
3) Are the Rich over burdened? (unable to support themselves, losing worth)
4) If a Flat Income Tax was implemented, wouldn't the Statistics still show the Rich paying a greater Total Amount of Income Tax?

Part of the problem with this issue, it seems to me, lies in the lack of understanding what "Rich" means. Certainly there is a Number that denotes the difference(don't know what it is officially) and that number is relatively close to the Middle Class/Lower Class number(likely from $1-$100,000 depending on whom you compare to), so by definition one would be alarmed that going over that threshhold suddenly increases ones' burden dramatically. However, the Income levels are not as narrowly focussed in Reality as the definitions would seem to indicate.

The definitions certainly apply to the majority of persons, but the Real World has a large segment of the population who make much more. These people are making 10x-100x more, in many cases, then the "Rich" threshhold, as such they skew the statistics of the category "Rich". This skewing is unique to the Rich, as they are the only group that have only 1 boundary(the Lowend of $X).

1) Lower Class: $0-$X(I'll assume somewhere between $10k-$20k)
2) Middle Class: $Upper Limit of Lower Class +$1 to $X(I'll assume $80k-$100k)
3) Upper Class: $Upper Limit of Middle Class + $1 to Infinity(no limit)

There are certainly more than 3 distinctions according to the Tax Code, but when these discussions come up everyone(left/right) like to simplify the issue to a point where their supporting evidence is often totally meaningless. There may very well be an Unfair burden on some "Rich", at the Lower End of the definition, but to lump those in with the Super Rich(which happens) and treat them all as a homogenous group is disingenuous.

Exactly - so why does the argument that the rich don't pay their fair share get sooo much play here and in politics? Is it not just a political class warfare item? And if it is genuine(instead of just a ploy) then what defines "fair" and how do we make it more "fair".

This is where the data I've used for the income tax stats have come from. Keep in mind that they are 2001 figures which just became available recently. It is quite enlightening data. $28500(AGI) will put you in the top 50% of filers(income earners)

I also found it interesting that the 1.3 million returns(top 1%) paid about 300 Billion in taxes which is about 230,000 in income taxes or about 27.5% average tax rate(for income tax) Lots of interesting stats can be culled from that data.
Now again - for the whiners - yes, this is ONLY the income tax portion of taxes, but still the only way we can currently "stick it to the rich".

CkG

Edit - here is a break down of tax collections by quarter since 1988 http://www.census.gov/govs/qtax/table1.xls

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

<sigh> - yes yes - keep trying to dance around the subject. Lets see some numbers and lets try to decipher them to see what qualifies as "fair share". At this point we have nothing except actual data from income tax(2001 recently became available).
And no - it is not "honest" when you look at how the tax is assessed - income has nothing to do with sales tax and others, so to represent it as such isn't accurate. Now like I said - as an over all picture it may come close, but it still needs to be put in the context of not being income based.

CkG

if you're going to talk about if taxes are fair the ONLY way you can do it is talk about the overall tax burden. no, it is not income based. NO ONE is arguing that it is income based. but it is still PAID out of income and makes your disposable income less. the OVERALL picture is the only one worth talking about, anything else is masturbation.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

<sigh> - yes yes - keep trying to dance around the subject. Lets see some numbers and lets try to decipher them to see what qualifies as "fair share". At this point we have nothing except actual data from income tax(2001 recently became available).
And no - it is not "honest" when you look at how the tax is assessed - income has nothing to do with sales tax and others, so to represent it as such isn't accurate. Now like I said - as an over all picture it may come close, but it still needs to be put in the context of not being income based.

CkG

if you're going to talk about if taxes are fair the ONLY way you can do it is talk about the overall tax burden. no, it is not income based. NO ONE is arguing that it is income based. but it is still PAID out of income and makes your disposable income less. the OVERALL picture is the only one worth talking about, anything else is masturbation.

You are just being silly now. NO sh!t, no one was claiming that income taxes were the only one, Sherlock. It's just not entirely honest to present that "big picture" without explaining that it is an estimate...unless you have figures on how much sales tax individual people pay, etc. What I'm saying is that there aren't concrete numbers that can be sorted into income groups easily and should be presented that way...again -unless you can provide us with the detailed breakdown of the "other" taxes.

Question for you all What is the single biggest income source for the Federal gov't? What about State gov'ts? How about your Local Gov'ts?

CkG

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

You are just being silly now. NO sh!t, no one was claiming that income taxes were the only one, Sherlock. It's just not entirely honest to present that "big picture" without explaining that it is an estimate...unless you have figures on how much sales tax individual people pay, etc. What I'm saying is that there aren't concrete numbers that can be sorted into income groups easily and should be presented that way...again -unless you can provide us with the detailed breakdown of the "other" taxes.

Question for you all What is the single biggest income source for the Federal gov't? What about State gov'ts? How about your Local Gov'ts?

CkG

of course it's an estimate, but you never argued that!

And no - it is not "honest" when you look at how the tax is assessed - income has nothing to do with sales tax and others

you were arguing that it is dishonest to look at overall tax burden!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

You are just being silly now. NO sh!t, no one was claiming that income taxes were the only one, Sherlock. It's just not entirely honest to present that "big picture" without explaining that it is an estimate...unless you have figures on how much sales tax individual people pay, etc. What I'm saying is that there aren't concrete numbers that can be sorted into income groups easily and should be presented that way...again -unless you can provide us with the detailed breakdown of the "other" taxes.

Question for you all What is the single biggest income source for the Federal gov't? What about State gov'ts? How about your Local Gov'ts?

CkG

of course it's an estimate, but you never argued that!

And no - it is not "honest" when you look at how the tax is assessed - income has nothing to do with sales tax and others

you were arguing that it is dishonest to look at overall tax burden!

Did I not ask for figures?
And did you miss the whole part about fruit? I was arguing the context that people were putting the "overall picture" in.


Now again so people see it.
Where/what does the Federal income come from?
State gov'ts?
Local gov'ts?

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
It seems to me that these subjects always get dumbed down and ignore the complexity. As a result, we get a lot of meaingless statistics, moral judgements(fairness), weak analogies, and words such as "Socialism" get thrown around with wild abandon. Let us consider a few things:

1) Is Income Tax the only Tax?
2) Are there taxes that one class pays, but not the other?
3) Are the Rich over burdened? (unable to support themselves, losing worth)
4) If a Flat Income Tax was implemented, wouldn't the Statistics still show the Rich paying a greater Total Amount of Income Tax?

Part of the problem with this issue, it seems to me, lies in the lack of understanding what "Rich" means. Certainly there is a Number that denotes the difference(don't know what it is officially) and that number is relatively close to the Middle Class/Lower Class number(likely from $1-$100,000 depending on whom you compare to), so by definition one would be alarmed that going over that threshhold suddenly increases ones' burden dramatically. However, the Income levels are not as narrowly focussed in Reality as the definitions would seem to indicate.

The definitions certainly apply to the majority of persons, but the Real World has a large segment of the population who make much more. These people are making 10x-100x more, in many cases, then the "Rich" threshhold, as such they skew the statistics of the category "Rich". This skewing is unique to the Rich, as they are the only group that have only 1 boundary(the Lowend of $X).

1) Lower Class: $0-$X(I'll assume somewhere between $10k-$20k)
2) Middle Class: $Upper Limit of Lower Class +$1 to $X(I'll assume $80k-$100k)
3) Upper Class: $Upper Limit of Middle Class + $1 to Infinity(no limit)

There are certainly more than 3 distinctions according to the Tax Code, but when these discussions come up everyone(left/right) like to simplify the issue to a point where their supporting evidence is often totally meaningless. There may very well be an Unfair burden on some "Rich", at the Lower End of the definition, but to lump those in with the Super Rich(which happens) and treat them all as a homogenous group is disingenuous.

Exactly - so why does the argument that the rich don't pay their fair share get sooo much play here and in politics? Is it not just a political class warfare item? And if it is genuine(instead of just a ploy) then what defines "fair" and how do we make it more "fair".

This is where the data I've used for the income tax stats have come from. Keep in mind that they are 2001 figures which just became available recently. It is quite enlightening data. $28500(AGI) will put you in the top 50% of filers(income earners)

I also found it interesting that the 1.3 million returns(top 1%) paid about 300 Billion in taxes which is about 230,000 in income taxes or about 27.5% average tax rate(for income tax) Lots of interesting stats can be culled from that data.
Now again - for the whiners - yes, this is ONLY the income tax portion of taxes, but still the only way we can currently "stick it to the rich".

CkG

Edit - here is a break down of tax collections by quarter since 1988 http://www.census.gov/govs/qtax/table1.xls

Either I didn't state it well or you completely missed my point.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Did I not ask for figures?
And did you miss the whole part about fruit? I was arguing the context that people were putting the "overall picture" in.

CkG

yes i read your fruit analogy, it was crap. you were still arguing that it was dishonest to lump all taxes together and show them as a percentage of income. you asked for figures, they were given, but you refuse to look at them, most likely because it doesn't show what you want to see. why is that? because it doesn't show "wealthy" people as being overburdened? you know what, it is intellectually dishonest NOT to consider all taxes as a percentage of income when talking about the tax burden, regardless of how they are levied! who cares if it isn't accurate down to the last red cent, it is accurate enough!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
It seems to me that these subjects always get dumbed down and ignore the complexity. As a result, we get a lot of meaingless statistics, moral judgements(fairness), weak analogies, and words such as "Socialism" get thrown around with wild abandon. Let us consider a few things:

1) Is Income Tax the only Tax?
2) Are there taxes that one class pays, but not the other?
3) Are the Rich over burdened? (unable to support themselves, losing worth)
4) If a Flat Income Tax was implemented, wouldn't the Statistics still show the Rich paying a greater Total Amount of Income Tax?

Part of the problem with this issue, it seems to me, lies in the lack of understanding what "Rich" means. Certainly there is a Number that denotes the difference(don't know what it is officially) and that number is relatively close to the Middle Class/Lower Class number(likely from $1-$100,000 depending on whom you compare to), so by definition one would be alarmed that going over that threshhold suddenly increases ones' burden dramatically. However, the Income levels are not as narrowly focussed in Reality as the definitions would seem to indicate.

The definitions certainly apply to the majority of persons, but the Real World has a large segment of the population who make much more. These people are making 10x-100x more, in many cases, then the "Rich" threshhold, as such they skew the statistics of the category "Rich". This skewing is unique to the Rich, as they are the only group that have only 1 boundary(the Lowend of $X).

1) Lower Class: $0-$X(I'll assume somewhere between $10k-$20k)
2) Middle Class: $Upper Limit of Lower Class +$1 to $X(I'll assume $80k-$100k)
3) Upper Class: $Upper Limit of Middle Class + $1 to Infinity(no limit)

There are certainly more than 3 distinctions according to the Tax Code, but when these discussions come up everyone(left/right) like to simplify the issue to a point where their supporting evidence is often totally meaningless. There may very well be an Unfair burden on some "Rich", at the Lower End of the definition, but to lump those in with the Super Rich(which happens) and treat them all as a homogenous group is disingenuous.

Exactly - so why does the argument that the rich don't pay their fair share get sooo much play here and in politics? Is it not just a political class warfare item? And if it is genuine(instead of just a ploy) then what defines "fair" and how do we make it more "fair".

This is where the data I've used for the income tax stats have come from. Keep in mind that they are 2001 figures which just became available recently. It is quite enlightening data. $28500(AGI) will put you in the top 50% of filers(income earners)

I also found it interesting that the 1.3 million returns(top 1%) paid about 300 Billion in taxes which is about 230,000 in income taxes or about 27.5% average tax rate(for income tax) Lots of interesting stats can be culled from that data.
Now again - for the whiners - yes, this is ONLY the income tax portion of taxes, but still the only way we can currently "stick it to the rich".

CkG

Edit - here is a break down of tax collections by quarter since 1988 http://www.census.gov/govs/qtax/table1.xls

Either I didn't state it well or you completely missed my point.

No, I got your point, you seemed to miss mine though...just everyone else.
Noboby seems to be answering the questions I pose. *sniff*

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Did I not ask for figures?
And did you miss the whole part about fruit? I was arguing the context that people were putting the "overall picture" in.

CkG

yes i read your fruit analogy, it was crap. you were still arguing that it was dishonest to lump all taxes together and show them as a percentage of income. you asked for figures, they were given, but you refuse to look at them, most likely because it doesn't show what you want to see. why is that? because it doesn't show "wealthy" people as being overburdened? you know what, it is intellectually dishonest NOT to consider all taxes as a percentage of income when talking about the tax burden, regardless of how they are levied! who cares if it isn't accurate down to the last red cent, it is accurate enough!

No, the analogy wasn't "crap" - you just won't acknowledge my point.
No the figures weren't given, infact until my last link there were no HARD numbers for the "other" taxes, just a graph by jahawking.
You again seem to be missing my point - I'm not saying the "rich" are over burdened(you'd understand this if you read my posts), I'm asking why people think the rich aren't paying thier "fair share" and why they think the rich should be taxed more. They don't seem to have any answer except "they are able to", which to me is just class envy and part of the political class warfare game that gets played.

You see Mr Forrest for the trees, the details are important when a group keeps saying things over and over("rich aren't paying their fair share") while providing no evidence of it being so. Do you understand what funds the Federal Gov't? How about State gov't? Local? Those are important factors when considering "overall" taxation - are they not? So yes - for a person to lump all the taxes together it is intellectually dishonest for them to do so if they make blanket income categorizations without acknowleging that they aren't all income based taxes.

I'd be interested in your answers to the questions I posed(bolded), I'll let your other argument drop(overall picture)...unless you still want to bicker about it though. Just try to understand and answer the other portions

CkG

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Because they exploit the working class.

By giving them jobs. Damn them! :Q

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If I were Rich I would side with the Rich but I'm not so I don't. What I am is self centered and I only care what is best for me. Now if you can show me why feeling sorry for the Rich is in my best interest then I will feel sorry for them. Of course I feel the same about the poor.

Good answer. :beer:

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: rjain
The poor have less discretionary income so they pay less sales tax.

No one is advocating that everyone pay the same amount of money in taxes. Stop floundering, it's not attractive.

But the poor pay a greater portion of their income as sales tax since most of their income goes to the purchase of goods and services. Sales tax is a regressive tax. As a percentage of overall income, the poor pay more, i.e., their effective rate is higher.

Show me a state where the sales tax is more than 10%. Most states don't tax food or other essentials. Poorer people will tend to spend a higher portion of their income on food than richer people.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Because they exploit the working class.

By giving them jobs. Damn them! :Q

That's backwards thinking. Workers make owners wealthy, that's why workers get jobs, not as a gift from on high.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Because they exploit the working class.

By giving them jobs. Damn them! :Q

That's backwards thinking. Workers make owners wealthy, that's why workers get jobs, not as a gift from on high.

So who took the "risk" to create the company that the workers "built"?

You see my freind, you are trying to say that that workers(horses) pull the cart(business), but what you fail to put into the equation is the guy steering the cart who is also the guy that hitched the cart to the horses

CkG

 

[rjain]

gotta love that anti-economic philosophy that people who start businesses and run them are "leeching" off the people who "work for" them. I guess all the "workers" at UPS are evil capitalists.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

No, the analogy wasn't "crap" - you just won't acknowledge my point.
No the figures weren't given, infact until my last link there were no HARD numbers for the "other" taxes, just a graph by jahawking.
You again seem to be missing my point - I'm not saying the "rich" are over burdened(you'd understand this if you read my posts), I'm asking why people think the rich aren't paying thier "fair share" and why they think the rich should be taxed more. They don't seem to have any answer except "they are able to", which to me is just class envy and part of the political class warfare game that gets played.

You see Mr Forrest for the trees, the details are important when a group keeps saying things over and over("rich aren't paying their fair share") while providing no evidence of it being so. Do you understand what funds the Federal Gov't? How about State gov't? Local? Those are important factors when considering "overall" taxation - are they not? So yes - for a person to lump all the taxes together it is intellectually dishonest for them to do so if they make blanket income categorizations without acknowleging that they aren't all income based taxes.

I'd be interested in your answers to the questions I posed(bolded), I'll let your other argument drop(overall picture)...unless you still want to bicker about it though. Just try to understand and answer the other portions

CkG

your analogy was crap because the number you made up was completely worthless. and no, it is not intellectually dishonest, because, as i've stated before, those taxes are PAID out of INCOME and REDUCE disposable INCOME. it is DISHONEST to say that X is paying enough/too little/too much in taxes just by looking at one tax, and not all of them. you can pick exactly which tax you want to show harms your interest the most! the interesting thing is the TOTAL, not merely one bit, regardless of it if is the largest part. wth can't you see that? your question is irrelevant. the taxes are still a burden (which can be expressed as a percentage of income) regardless of who they're being paid to and in what manner they are levied. did you know that the graph had numbers on it? it doesn't seem like you do. you can say what you will but the only possible reason you continue to insist on looking at only the part you do instead of the whole is to say that the rich are overburdened.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: rjain
gotta love that anti-economic philosophy that people who start businesses and run them are "leeching" off the people who "work for" them. I guess all the "workers" at UPS are evil capitalists.

What I said is no more outrageous than someone saying that owners "give" workers jobs. I didn't say anybody was evil, my point is it's rediculous to make business owners into saints because they want people to work for them so they can make money.

 

[Tom]

"So who took the "risk" to create the company that the workers "built"?"

everybody. investors, banks, workers, all risk either time or money, or both. I don't have a problem with owners making money, just don't say they are doing workers a big favor by giving them jobs without acknowledging that workers are doing owners a big favor by making them money.

The rich don't deserve some kind of humanitarian award because they want to be richer..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

No, the analogy wasn't "crap" - you just won't acknowledge my point.
No the figures weren't given, infact until my last link there were no HARD numbers for the "other" taxes, just a graph by jahawking.
You again seem to be missing my point - I'm not saying the "rich" are over burdened(you'd understand this if you read my posts), I'm asking why people think the rich aren't paying thier "fair share" and why they think the rich should be taxed more. They don't seem to have any answer except "they are able to", which to me is just class envy and part of the political class warfare game that gets played.

You see Mr Forrest for the trees, the details are important when a group keeps saying things over and over("rich aren't paying their fair share") while providing no evidence of it being so. Do you understand what funds the Federal Gov't? How about State gov't? Local? Those are important factors when considering "overall" taxation - are they not? So yes - for a person to lump all the taxes together it is intellectually dishonest for them to do so if they make blanket income categorizations without acknowleging that they aren't all income based taxes.

I'd be interested in your answers to the questions I posed(bolded), I'll let your other argument drop(overall picture)...unless you still want to bicker about it though. Just try to understand and answer the other portions

CkG

your analogy was crap because the number you made up was completely worthless. No
and no, it is not intellectually dishonest, because, as i've stated before, those taxes are PAID out of INCOME and REDUCE disposable INCOME.Are you blind? or can't you read? I've acknowledged such
it is DISHONEST to say that X is paying enough/too little/too much in taxes just by looking at one tax, and not all of them.Yep - can't read. I never stated such. You are ASSuming that my posting Income tax figures means I don't realize that.
you can pick exactly which tax you want to show harms your interest the most!yep - the graph proves that. Notice my links to the actual data?
the interesting thing is the TOTAL, not merely one bit, regardless of it if is the largest part. wth can't you see that?Again, I didn't say that. I presented my data in context and asked for data on the other taxes...<crickets>
your question is irrelevant. which one? You've skipped many.
the taxes are still a burden (which can be expressed as a percentage of income) regardless of who they're being paid to and in what manner they are levied. read what I said If people put it in the right context it can be a valid argument...still waiting for the data though
did you know that the graph had numbers on it?do you have ALL the data? You just said earlier in this post that things can be made to show whatever your angle is
it doesn't seem like you do.you seem to keep missing my request for data. Also you keep missing my question on how the graph shows that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" like the lefties are always spouting.
you can say what you will but the only possible reason you continue to insist on looking at only the part you do instead of the whole is to say that the rich are overburdened.no, what I'm saying is that why is it OK for the Leftists to spout about fairness and "fair share" and chanting about increasing the taxes on the rich when there is no data to show they aren't.

OK, now I don't know why you keep skipping over my questions and continue with your "overall" picture whining, but I do know that I've already addressed the "overall picture" multiple times in this thread - and I never said that Income tax was to the only tax that should be considered. Do you have some data for me yet? Also do you have some answers to where the the Feds income comes from? State govt's? Local? Yeah, lets start with getting those answered before I continue with my point.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
"So who took the "risk" to create the company that the workers "built"?"

everybody. investors, banks, workers, all risk either time or money, or both. I don't have a problem with owners making money, just don't say they are doing workers a big favor by giving them jobs without acknowledging that workers are doing owners a big favor by making them money.

The rich don't deserve some kind of humanitarian award because they want to be richer..

Right, it is a somewhat symbiotic relationship. I've never claimed it wasn't. I just don't think that portraying the worker as making the owner wealthy without taking into account their individual reward(paycheck) for doing the work.

CkG

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch

Originally posted by: rjain
gotta love that anti-economic philosophy that people who start businesses and run them are "leeching" off the people who "work for" them. I guess all the "workers" at UPS are evil capitalists.

What I said is no more outrageous than someone saying that owners "give" workers jobs. I didn't say anybody was evil, my point is it's rediculous to make business owners into saints because they want people to work for them so they can make money.

You are trying to make the poor into saints because they supposedly work and don't save any money. Somehow that is the fault of the rich, who should be taxed more than they already are as punishment. I don't get it.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
The rich don't deserve some kind of humanitarian award because they want to be richer..

Right, it is a somewhat symbiotic relationship. I've never claimed it wasn't. I just don't think that portraying the worker as making the owner wealthy without taking into account their individual reward(paycheck) for doing the work.

Since the relationship is purely voluntary (notwithstanding issues of slavery, indentured servitude, unionization, and affirmative action) on both sides, it must be more than just somewhat symbiotic for it to happen at all.

 

[ElFenix]

your analogy was crap because the number you made up was completely worthless. No

yes, your analogy was completely worthless. why? because what you made up is completely uninteresting, whereas the overall tax burden is very interesting in showing whether a group is paying their "share" or not

and no, it is not intellectually dishonest, because, as i've stated before, those taxes are PAID out of INCOME and REDUCE disposable INCOME.Are you blind? or can't you read? I've acknowledged such

and yet you said this:

So yes - for a person to lump all the taxes together it is intellectually dishonest

To throw the other taxes in there isn't right because - those are more set rate taxes which have very little to do with income. So lumping them into income categories is not "honest".

you're contradicting yourself. either it's honest or it's not. which is it?

it is DISHONEST to say that X is paying enough/too little/too much in taxes just by looking at one tax, and not all of them.Yep - can't read. I never stated such. You are ASSuming that my posting Income tax figures means I don't realize that

you've said that looking at the whole picture is the dishonest way doing it. i'm stating that it is dishonest to do it any other way. you can't have both. and can you keep the personal attacks out of it?

you can pick exactly which tax you want to show harms your interest the most!yep - the graph proves that. Notice my links to the actual data?

yup, you linked to just the data you wanted to show. the graph is the whole data, not just 1 piece of it.

the interesting thing is the TOTAL, not merely one bit, regardless of it if is the largest part. wth can't you see that?Again, I didn't say that. I presented my data in context and asked for data on the other taxes...<crickets>

the graph was plenty enough data on other taxes. and you still said it was dishonest to look at the total, so yes, by your own posts you've disagreed with that.

your question is irrelevant. which one? You've skipped many.

maybe you should read the next sentence before assuming that i've made a whole argument out of just 1 sentence.

the taxes are still a burden (which can be expressed as a percentage of income) regardless of who they're being paid to and in what manner they are levied. read what I said If people put it in the right context it can be a valid argument...still waiting for the data though

the graph is plenty enough data for a pointless argument on the internet

did you know that the graph had numbers on it?do you have ALL the data? You just said earlier in this post that things can be made to show whatever your angle is

i said that you can do so by picking just 1 tax out of the whole multitude of taxes. you can't by showing the whole thing. which is why the whole thing is the honest thing. it is unbiased aggregate tax information.

it doesn't seem like you do.you seem to keep missing my request for data. Also you keep missing my question on how the graph shows that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" like the lefties are always spouting.

i didn't say that the rich haven't been paying their fair share, you must have me confused with someone else. the graph shows that the rich do pay their fair share. why would i claim that the graph shows something it doesn't?

ou can say what you will but the only possible reason you continue to insist on looking at only the part you do instead of the whole is to say that the rich are overburdened.no, what I'm saying is that why is it OK for the Leftists to spout about fairness and "fair share" and chanting about increasing the taxes on the rich when there is no data to show they aren't.

not when you've been talking to me, taking issue with showing the aggregate instead of just income tax. if you want to know why the lefties are doing something you should ask one of them instead of me

OK, now I don't know why you keep skipping over my questions and continue with your "overall" picture whining, but I do know that I've already addressed the "overall picture" multiple times in this thread - and I never said that Income tax was to the only tax that should be considered.

check above where you're contradicting yourself

Do you have some data for me yet? Also do you have some answers to where the the Feds income comes from? State govt's? Local? Yeah, lets start with getting those answered before I continue with my point.

i don't see why breaking down the numbers particularly matters since what is interesting is the overall burden. if you want to make a point of something do your own damn research.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

ElFenix-

This has gone far enough.
Yes it is dishonest to dump them all into one WITHOUT acknowledging that income may have nothing to do with some the taxes. GOT IT YET!!!? <- I'm through with your nonsense about that.
All the data I linked to and used was put in it's proper perspective I was very carefull to use proper wording so people wouldn't ASSume what you have ASSumed...IF they fully read my post.
I linked to SOME data - YOU have not. I have asked for more data - NOBODY(except jahawkin's graph) provided any but yet YOU contine to whine about some magical overall picture that nobody can verify. Get me some data and we'll look at it, to see how much of their "fair share" the rich really are paying.
That graph isn't very good data without having more details - very little data can be culled from it, since it was culled from the raw data (I hope).
Hehe - yeah, do it myself... well I'm not the one clinging to some claim of an "overall" picture with nothing(besides 1 little graph) to back it up.
This data IS important because it shows WHY AND HOW WE HAVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF TAXES So yes - breaking it down is VERY important in trying to decipher the data to paint the "big picture".

I don't know why you are trying to fight me on this. The FEDERAL gov'ts income from? Yeah...that's right...INCOME TAXES. Wow - that would have taken 2 seconds of a google search for you. So, the question then becomes - Is the revenue recieved by the FEDS "fair"? If not? why?Fix?
Next, where does the state revenue come from?
Then Local too.
You see Mr. Forrestforthetrees, I should think that the state(sales tax*) and probably the local gov't(property tax and local sales) are the recipients of the "regressive" type tax incomes. Have you asked yourself why?
*note - yes I know some states gets income tax

I understand you qualm about my use of "you" and "leftist" - alot of times it is meant to be a generic "if the shoe fits" type thing. If you can't/won't provide any data, please refrain from using any blanket "overall" statement until you can back up your claims. See - THAT is exactly my point with all this. The Democrats keep whining about the rich not paying their "fair share" and how we should tax them more, but present ZERO data to back up their assertion. Likewise people here have done the same thing. You taking issue with me only provideing INCOME TAX data helped to prove that. You keep claiming that an overall picture is the only way, and I'm saying it isn't, because the data doesn't come bundled like that since it doesn't matter what a person's income is when paying sales tax. Yes, you could probably estimate it and get pretty close, but without presenting the data in that light - it IS dishonest.

Care to continue with your nonsense?

CkG

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
ElFenix-

This has gone far enough.
Yes it is dishonest to dump them all into one WITHOUT acknowledging that income may have nothing to do with some the taxes. GOT IT YET!!!? <- I'm through with your nonsense about that.
All the data I linked to and used was put in it's proper perspective I was very carefull to use proper wording so people wouldn't ASSume what you have ASSumed...IF they fully read my post.
I linked to SOME data - YOU have not. I have asked for more data - NOBODY(except jahawkin's graph) provided any but yet YOU contine to whine about some magical overall picture that nobody can verify. Get me some data and we'll look at it, to see how much of their "fair share" the rich really are paying.
That graph isn't very good data without having more details - very little data can be culled from it, since it was culled from the raw data (I hope).
Hehe - yeah, do it myself... well I'm not the one clinging to some claim of an "overall" picture with nothing(besides 1 little graph) to back it up.
This data IS important because it shows WHY AND HOW WE HAVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF TAXES So yes - breaking it down is VERY important in trying to decipher the data to paint the "big picture".

I don't know why you are trying to fight me on this. The FEDERAL gov'ts income from? Yeah...that's right...INCOME TAXES. Wow - that would have taken 2 seconds of a google search for you. So, the question then becomes - Is the revenue recieved by the FEDS "fair"? If not? why?Fix?
Next, where does the state revenue come from?
Then Local too.
You see Mr. Forrestforthetrees, I should think that the state(sales tax*) and probably the local gov't(property tax and local sales) are the recipients of the "regressive" type tax incomes. Have you asked yourself why?
*note - yes I know some states gets income tax

I understand you qualm about my use of "you" and "leftist" - alot of times it is meant to be a generic "if the shoe fits" type thing. If you can't/won't provide any data, please refrain from using any blanket "overall" statement until you can back up your claims. See - THAT is exactly my point with all this. The Democrats keep whining about the rich not paying their "fair share" and how we should tax them more, but present ZERO data to back up their assertion. Likewise people here have done the same thing. You taking issue with me only provideing INCOME TAX data helped to prove that. You keep claiming that an overall picture is the only way, and I'm saying it isn't, because the data doesn't come bundled like that since it doesn't matter what a person's income is when paying sales tax. Yes, you could probably estimate it and get pretty close, but without presenting the data in that light - it IS dishonest.

Care to continue with your nonsense?

CkG

no one has said that the taxes are income based. no one has said that the data provided is anything but an estimate. so your insistance on posting about something no one is doing is the nonsense. in fact, i really don't give a rat's ass what the actual data is, i'm aruging that the big picture is the one to be looked at because it describes the total burden. you don't need to have actual data in hand to try to figure out which data to work with and which is the most honest to look at. it would be grossly inefficient to collect data and then decide which data is needed. either that or you're massaging data with an eye toward a canned conclusion. wanting to use the best data for describing if the overall tax burden is fair requires looking at the overall picture, not just one, albeit the largest, part. you can't do it any other way. and determining if just one part is fair is impossible without looking at what it does to the aggregate. recognizing that hardly makes me a leftist.

and can you keep the personal attacks out of your posts just once? no one is whining.