AR15

today was that 50% polled by Gallup are happy with current Fed tax. The other 50% said their Fed Taxes too High.

Well DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IRS figures show that the top 50% of wage earner pay a WHOPPING 96% of all Fed income taxes. That leaves the bottom 50% only paying 4%. What would these people only paying 4% have to complain about?

My rant for the day.

Time for a ice cold Sam Adams.

MPSmith

I'm sorry, that doesn't qualify as a rant. You simply spoke the plain truth. :D

MyUncle

Your Numbers are incorrect. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96.04% of all taxes collected...leaving 3.96% of the taxes paid by the lower 50% of wage earners. Please keep in mind the key words "Wage Earners." This does not include persons on federal financial aid. (roughly 15% both in unemployed and disabled persons)

MPSmith

Quote:

Originally posted by AR15@Jan 21 2003, 08:20 PM IRS figures show that the top 50% of wage earner pay a WHOPPING 96% of all Fed income taxes.

Myuncle, he used the term "wage earner". His figures are accurate, except that he left the letter "s" off of wage earners. Do you have a cogent point here or are you nit-picking?

I'd love to hear this explanation...

BravesFan

Good political discourse? Without yelling? How refreshing. If we continue down the path of income redistribution, Atlas will eventually shrug, and then where will this nation be? <_<

__________________
"Misguided angel hanging over me....."

Quinn

Quote:

Originally posted by AR15@Jan 21 2003, 08:20 PM That leaves the bottom 50% only paying 4%. What would these people only paying 4% have to complain about?

That's 4% of the total, not 4% of their income. They are paying a fairly high percentage as well but (of course) get no breaks from the govt. like the rich guys.

Also that 96% includes corporations etc. who count in with the rich folks but, while paying a large sum are usually not paying what they really owe or is fair due to 'incentives'. These incentives are supposed to trickle down (and we all know how well that economic model works...NOT) to their lower employees. In reality what happens is the company makes massive profits (on paper at least) the CEO gets a mega deal and the little guys get laid off.

AR15

No, the top 50% does NOT include corporations, it is strictly individuals. You can download the spreadsheets at IRS.org.

Tax breaks definitely stimulate the economy and there is a "trickle down" effect. It was vastly proven in the 60s when Kennedy did it and the economy in the 80's after Regan's cuts. What you must be confused about is all the deficit SPENDING that occured under Reagan with the Democrats running both houses.

And, no one is "given" anything by a taxcut. Only less is TAKEN from them.

Quinn

Quote:

Originally posted by AR15@Jan 23 2003, 08:15 AM <<Tax breaks definitely stimulate the economy>> <<after Regan's cuts. >>>

Oh sure. Bush's tax cuts have done wonders for our economy.

As for Reagan he belonged in Jail for treason and was just about the worst president as far as the economy goes in history. Unless of course you're a rich white male.

SkyMaster19

Tax breaks are great as long as you don't start a war in the same fiscal year......................

desiv

Wasn't it Gearge W. Bush Sr. who called this type of econimics...hmm.. what was it he said... Oh yeah..

Voo Doo econimics...

:-)

Course, that was before he was President.

desiv

AR15

Quinn,

I hope you use your new Axim to find some facts on politics, because you seem to have been brainwashed with socialist propaganda. And, let me tell you something - I am not a Republican.

Dubya's tax cut has not hurt the economy. It wasn't big enought to help or hurt the economy. Most of it has not even been realized yet as it will be fazed in over 10 long years. In fact, our congress spent 2/3 more than this year's tax cut.

What we need is a Constitutional amendment for term limits on Congress and Senators. That way they won't have as much incentive to use OUR money for THEIR political gain.

My friend, spending was the problem when Reagan was president as it is now. Allowing the citizens to keep more of their hard earned money is NOT the problem.

desiv

Yep, it's not the problem, but it's not the solution either.. It's a cheap political trick to make people happy. Hey, getting money back makes me happy!! :-)

But although I'm happy, I'm realistic. Tax cuts aren't going to help the economy in any great way...

We need serious, but well planned cuts in programs. We need leaders that are willing to cut where it makes sense, not where it makes the most political impact...
We need to create jobs rather than dependency.
We need to realize that, apart from consumer confidence, there's very little any President actually does to affect the economy...

And as soon as that happens, I can go to Hobbiton in the Shire and kick back with Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin.. Bout the same chance of that happening...

desiv...

Well, war's usually good for the economy, but you can't just create a war... ;)

MyUncle

How many poor people are starting businesses that hire other people? or is that not a trickle down? I, personally have never worked for someone who had less money than I. Please consider this.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!
:o

desiv

Cute, but that doesn't prove a point..
It's just false math.. It starts from old points with new amounts, instead of redoing the whole equation with all new amounts..

Course, you could be saying our tax system is using this same false math, which may be true. I don't know that much about our tax system..

Of course, in reality, the meal would be $100.. They would want to split it fairly, (Of course) so they start to break it down.. But then, the 3 richest say, "Hey, if it wasn't for our support of community programs, none of this part of town would even have a restaurant.. We need a bit of credit for that.. So the 4 lowest, who would have been getting the meal for free, decide it's OK for them to pay $5 each.. It was a good mean, and all 4 of them are only paying $20 total, so they're still doing OK.. That leaves 6 guys and $80.. The next 3 guys say, "Well, that sounds OK.. I suppose we can pay $10 each.. That's only $30 and brings the total to $50, leaving the rest to be paid by the richest 3 .. OK.. Then the richest man realizes that since he should pay the most, it should be $15 apiece for the next 2, and he'll do $20.. Sounds good.. Then the richest man remembers the tip.. and asks for just $2 from each man..

And as they leave, he pockets the $18 because only he remembered the gratuity was already in the bill for a group that large, and ends up paying $2 for his meal... After all, that's why he's the richest..
_________________________________

And I personally have worked for someone with less money than I. I work for the State.. :D

desiv
My percentages might be off, but.. :-)

BravesFan

desiv, if you work in government, you above all should know that government creates not one cent of wealth. It only confiscates from those who have achieved and redistributes it in order to retain power. That is why real tax cuts, accompanied by real cuts in spending proportional to the smaller inflows, get us to a point where we spend less on government and have more money in our pockets to spend, invest or save. That's the goal we should be trying to reach. BTW, this screed is brought to you by a fellow govt employee.

__________________
"Misguided angel hanging over me....."