Re: The rich pay less taxes

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:

> The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
> made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal Revenue
> Service data. And this doesn�t even count income that doesn�t show up as
> adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
>
> Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate

We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
DID THEY PAY?

In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
pay 40% of total income tax.

The rich pay far more than their share.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>
> > The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
> > made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal Revenue

> > Service data. And this doesn’t even count income that doesn’t show up as

> > adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
> >
> > Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
>
> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
> DID THEY PAY?
>
> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
> pay 40% of total income tax.
>
> The rich pay far more than their share.

No they don't.

Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
That means the rich get 25% of income and their
income tax payments cover about 13% of federal expenditures.

They are paying closer to half their share.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:10:49 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

>
>
>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>
>> > The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
>> > made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal Revenue
>> > Service data. And this doesn�t even count income that doesn�t show up as
>> > adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
>> >
>> > Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
>>
>> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
>> DID THEY PAY?
>>
>> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
>> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
>> pay 40% of total income tax.
>>
>> The rich pay far more than their share.
>
>No they don't.

Yes, they do.

>Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.

We're only talking about income tax. Note how you have to shuck and
jive and twist to convince yourself.

[Sancho Panza]

On 11/2/2013 1:16 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:10:49 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>>
>>>> The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
>>>> made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal Revenue

>>>> Service data. And this doesn�t even count income that doesn�t show up as

>>>> adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
>>>>
>>>> Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
>>>
>>> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
>>> DID THEY PAY?
>>>
>>> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
>>> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
>>> pay 40% of total income tax.
>>>
>>> The rich pay far more than their share.
>>
>> No they don't.
>
> Yes, they do.
>
>> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
>
> We're only talking about income tax. Note how you have to shuck and
> jive and twist to convince yourself.

He still can't explain where the remainder -- apparently an ever
changing figure at 67 percent today -- is derived.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Scout]

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
news:iLydnf0T_aqKr-jP...@bright.net...

>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>
>> > The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
>> > made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal
>> > Revenue
>> > Service data. And this doesn't even count income that doesn't show up
>> > as
>> > adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
>> >
>> > Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
>>
>> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
>> DID THEY PAY?
>>
>> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
>> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
>> pay 40% of total income tax.
>>
>> The rich pay far more than their share.
>
> No they don't.

Yes, they do given the subject is income tax.

> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
> That means the rich get 25% of income and their
> income tax payments cover about 13% of federal expenditures.

Yep, and we see a classic case of apples and oranges....

You want to change the goal post to total government expenditures yet you
wish to limit yourself to income tax payments only.

Well, I will simply state that BY YOUR OWN FUCKING STANDARD.....NO ONE PAYS
THEIR FAIR SHARE!

Looks like we need to cut the federal expenditures by 2/3 so that it matches
the income tax revenue they get....if we are to attempt to have everyone pay
their fair share.....

[jim]

That's right I'm only talking about income tax
Individual income tax only covers 1/3 of federal
expenditures.

[jim]

Sancho Panza wrote:
>
> On 11/2/2013 1:16 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> > On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:10:49 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
> >>>
> >>>> The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
> >>>> made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal Revenue

> >>>> Service data. And this doesn’t even count income that doesn’t show up as

> >>>> adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
> >>>
> >>> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
> >>> DID THEY PAY?
> >>>
> >>> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
> >>> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
> >>> pay 40% of total income tax.
> >>>
> >>> The rich pay far more than their share.
> >>
> >> No they don't.
> >
> > Yes, they do.
> >
> >> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
> >
> > We're only talking about income tax. Note how you have to shuck and
> > jive and twist to convince yourself.
>
> He still can't explain where the remainder -- apparently an ever
> changing figure at 67 percent today -- is derived.
>

What are you some helpless kitten stuck in a tree?

Here is the complete breakdown of the federal outlays
and receipts. Maybe if you whine loud enough, someone will
do your research for you.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

[First-Post]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:21:38 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>

Which is irrelevant to whether or not the wealthy pay the lions share
or not.

Now run along and go babble about how everyone should "suffer equally"
from taxation where someone might give a shit.

[First-Post]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:25:53 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>

Once again the stupid liberal presents a non sequitor as an argument.

You have no argument and you aren't fooling anyone.

But please continue to show the world just how ignorant you are with
your stupid parroted liberal talking points that lead nowhere.

[jim]

It's irrelevant to whether they pay the piss ant's share also.

The income tax of the wealthy pays for about 13% of
govt expenditures. That is a fact.

You can spin that to say that is more than a
lion pays and that would be true.

[jim]

What argument??? The guy asked a stupid question. If
he thinks the answer is meaningful he can find the
answer for himself.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 11/2/2013 10:10 AM, jim lied:

>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>
>>> The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
>>> made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal
>>> Revenue

>>> Service data. And this doesn�t even count income that doesn�t show up as

>>> adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
>>>
>>> Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
>>
>> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
>> DID THEY PAY?
>>
>> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
>> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
>> pay 40% of total income tax.
>>
>> The rich pay far more than their share.
>
> No they don't.

They do. Proved.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 11/2/2013 11:21 AM, jim lied:

>
>
> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:10:49 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
>>>>> made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal Revenue

>>>>> Service data. And this doesn�t even count income that doesn�t show up as

>>>>> adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
>>>>
>>>> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
>>>> DID THEY PAY?
>>>>
>>>> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
>>>> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
>>>> pay 40% of total income tax.
>>>>
>>>> The rich pay far more than their share.
>>>
>>> No they don't.
>>
>> Yes, they do.
>>
>>> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
>>
>> We're only talking about income tax.
>
> That's right

Right. So stay on topic.

The rich pay a higher percentage of income tax than their share of income.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 11/2/2013 12:14 PM, jim lied:

>
>
> First-Post wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:21:38 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>

>>>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:10:49 -0500, jim lied:

>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
>>>>>>> made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal Revenue

>>>>>>> Service data. And this doesn�t even count income that doesn�t show up as

>>>>>>> adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
>>>>>> DID THEY PAY?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
>>>>>> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
>>>>>> pay 40% of total income tax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The rich pay far more than their share.
>>>>>
>>>>> No they don't.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, they do.
>>>>
>>>>> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
>>>>
>>>> We're only talking about income tax.
>>>
>>> That's right I'm only talking about income tax
>>> Individual income tax only covers 1/3 of federal
>>> expenditures.
>>
>> Which is irrelevant to whether or not the wealthy pay the lions share
>> or not.
>
> It's irrelevant to

Expenditure is irrelevant to the topic.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:25:53 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>

What are you, some left-leaning lying sack of shit?

The rich pay more than their fair share of income tax. That's a fact.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:21:38 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>

wrote:

>
>
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:10:49 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>> >>
>> >> > The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
>> >> > made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal Revenue
>> >> > Service data. And this doesn�t even count income that doesn�t show up as
>> >> > adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
>> >>
>> >> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
>> >> DID THEY PAY?
>> >>
>> >> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
>> >> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
>> >> pay 40% of total income tax.
>> >>
>> >> The rich pay far more than their share.
>> >
>> >No they don't.
>>
>> Yes, they do.
>>
>> >Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
>>
>> We're only talking about income tax.
>
>That's right I'm only talking about income tax

In that case, you're full of shit, since the rich pay FAR more than

their fair share of income tax.

Need a clue by four or can you find the facts yourself?

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:


>
> Right. So stay on topic.
>
> The rich pay a higher percentage of income tax than their share of income.

They pay for only about 13% of federal spending.
They get about 25% of income.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The rich pay far more than their share.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No they don't.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, they do.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
> >>>>
> >>>> We're only talking about income tax.
> >>>
> >>> That's right I'm only talking about income tax
> >>> Individual income tax only covers 1/3 of federal
> >>> expenditures.
> >>
> >> Which is irrelevant to whether or not the wealthy pay the lions share
> >> or not.
> >
> > It's irrelevant to
>
> Expenditure is irrelevant to the topic.

Income tax on the rich covers only 13% of federal
expenditures while they get 25% of income.

Those are facts you don't want to hear.

[jim]

The income tax they pay covers 13% of federal spending while

[jim]

Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:


>
> The rich pay more than their fair share of income tax. That's a fact.

They don't pay their share of federal govt spending.
They only pay for 13% while they get 25% of income.

That looks like about half their share to me.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:20:37 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

>
>

>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The rich pay more than their fair share of income tax. That's a fact.
>
>
>They don't pay their share of federal govt spending.

Thanks for admitting that they pay more than their fair share of
income tax.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:17:13 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>

>The income tax they pay covers [..]

Irrelevant to the discussion.

The rich pay FAR more than their fair share of income tax. That's the
fact being denied by leftist thugs here.

[jim]

They don't pay for their share of the goodies and
services from the federal govt.
That was the false claim in dispute.

[jim]

There is no "discussion". You just don't want
to hear the facts, which is why you snip the facts.

The facts you don't like are
that the income tax from the top 1% pays for
only 13% of federal spending while they get 25%
of the nation's income.

> The rich pay FAR more than their fair share of income tax. That's the
> fact being denied by leftist thugs here.

Who gives a shit what leftist thugs say?

[First-Post]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 16:13:44 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>

wrote:

>
>
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:20:37 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The rich pay more than their fair share of income tax. That's a fact.
>> >
>> >
>> >They don't pay their share of federal govt spending.
>>
>> Thanks for admitting that they pay more than their fair share of
>> income tax.
>
>They don't pay for their share of the goodies and
>services from the federal govt.
>That was the false claim in dispute.

You have yet to show a goddamned bit of any proof whatsoever to back
up your stupid assed claims.

Just what taxes in particular is it that you think the wealthy don't
pay their fair share of if you eliminate income tax from the equation?

Sales taxes? Pretty sure that they buy more consumer goods and higher
quality than average Joes therefore they pay more in sales taxes.

Federal excise taxes? They typically buy higher end and more
expensive products such as vehicles, tires and all the other items
that carry an excise tax.

Fuel taxes? If they have a private plane they pay more in fuel taxes
in just a couple of cross country trips than regular Joes usually pay
in a year.

As far as their share of government expenditures is concerned, it is
neither theirs or any of the rest of us's fault that the "kids over
spend their allowance".
Your piddly little whiney argument that the government's lack of
fiscal responsibility is because the wealthy aren't paying in enough
taxes has always been and always will be just a pathetic joke.

[Sancho Panza]

That is rich. One of the biggest bloviators proves himself unable to
post anything but the same old cant.

>
> The facts you don't like are
> that the income tax from the top 1% pays for
> only 13% of federal spending while they get 25%
> of the nation's income.
>
>> The rich pay FAR more than their fair share of income tax. That's the
>> fact being denied by leftist thugs here.
>
> Who gives a shit what leftist thugs say?
>

[jim]

First-Post wrote:
>
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 16:13:44 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:20:37 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The rich pay more than their fair share of income tax. That's a fact.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >They don't pay their share of federal govt spending.
> >>
> >> Thanks for admitting that they pay more than their fair share of
> >> income tax.
> >
> >They don't pay for their share of the goodies and
> >services from the federal govt.
> >That was the false claim in dispute.
>
> You have yet to show a goddamned bit of any proof whatsoever to back
> up your stupid assed claims.

Its not my claim.

I stated facts to that refute a claim someone else made.
The fact is
The rich have 25% of the income and their income
tax pays for 13% of the federal spending.

That looks like they pay about half their share to me.

> Just what taxes in particular is it that you think the wealthy don't
> pay their fair share of if you eliminate income tax from the equation?

i didn't say anything about eliminating income tax???
You need to straighten your eyeballs - you're reading crooked.

The bullshit story you keep hearing is that the 47% haven't
been paying income tax. So what? Income tax has been covering
less than 30% of federal spending. The income taxpayers get
80% of the income and they pay for less than 30% of the federal
spending. Is that fair?
There is no redistribution of the taxpayer's wealth. The
taxpayers aren't even covering close to their share of the
spending.

> Your piddly little whiney argument that the government's lack of
> fiscal responsibility is because the wealthy aren't paying in enough
> taxes has always been and always will be just a pathetic joke.

Never made that claim. I stated a few facts that destroy
the bullshit story you cling to.

I stated a fact that you don't like...
The income tax of the top 1% only covers 13% of federal
spending while they receive 25% of income.

If you look at all income taxpayers its even worse. All
those taxpayers get 80% of the income and they have been paying
for less than 30% of federal spending.

And lets look at who does most of the real work.
that would be the half of the country who make 20%
of the income.

[jim]

Sancho Panza wrote:

>
> That is rich. One of the biggest bloviators proves himself unable to
> post anything but the same old cant.

Do you mean this:

The facts you don't like are
that the income tax from the top 1% pays for
only 13% of federal spending while they get 25%
of the nation's income.

Just ask I'll be happy to post it again.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Saturday, November 2, 2013 4:20:37 PM UTC-4, jim wrote:

>
>
> They don't pay their share of federal govt spending.
>
> They only pay for 13% while they get 25% of income.
>
>
>
> That looks like about half their share to me.

The rich pay more than just income taxes. If they own stocks, then they are part owners of a corporation. So any taxes the corporation pays ought to be credited to them. That is only one example, but it shows you have no good idea of what the rich pay to the federal government.

Dan

[dca...@krl.org]

On Saturday, November 2, 2013 4:17:13 PM UTC-4, jim wrote:

>
>
>
> The income tax they pay covers 13% of federal spending while
>
> they get 25% of income.

Yeah, but all the income taxes only cover about 60 % of the federal spending. And while the rich may not pay more than 13% of the federal spending , it is a bigger percentage than other sectors pay in income taxes.

Dan

[dca...@krl.org]

On Saturday, November 2, 2013 8:19:25 PM UTC-4, jim wrote:

> The facts you don't like are
>
> that the income tax from the top 1% pays for
>
> only 13% of federal spending while they get 25%
>
> of the nation's income.
>
>

They are not given 25% of the nations income as you seem to insinuate.

Dan

[Lloyd E. Sponenburgh]

> The rich have 25% of the income and their income
> tax pays for 13% of the federal spending.
>
> That looks like they pay about half their share to me.
>

No, about twice their share. They USE about 3% of federal spending.

20% of the public consumes 80% of the national budget. (mostly in the form
of welfare and 'free services' like hospitalization, free medicines, )

Let THEM pay their full share, then start squawking about the tiny
remainder who don't!

Lloyd

[Ignoramus11177]

The government created a certain taxation regime that involves tax
incentives. For example, there is a tax incentive to hold investments
for the long term (to pay less capital gains taxes). There is an
additional incentive to own dividend paying assets, due to low
dividend tax. Additionally, there is an incentive to make charitable
donations, as the entire donation qualifies as a tax writeoff.

The rich people take advantage of these incentives.

Additionally, the small fraction of top earning people who received
25% of income, probably received de minimis return of federal benefits
of any kind, per dollar paid, compared to the bottom people.

While it is my belief that rich people should pay more in taxes, and
that everyone should pay more in taxes to cover government spending,
the above mentioned tax incentives are not crazy stupid.

i

[Sancho Panza]

Until you can explain where the other 67, or now 87, percent of the
income comes from, you don't have a leg to stand on.

[jim]

Of course they are.
They don't steal it or take it by force or
counterfeit it in their basement.
It is given to them by others who are willing
to do so.

[jon_banquer]

No, it's not a fact.

[jim]

"dca...@krl.org" wrote:
>
> On Saturday, November 2, 2013 4:17:13 PM UTC-4, jim wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > The income tax they pay covers 13% of federal spending while
> >
> > they get 25% of income.
>
> Yeah, but all the income taxes only cover about 60 % of the federal spending.

Individual income taxes cover less than 30% in the last
5 years.

In 2009 they covered 26% of federal spending.

They haven't covered anywhere close to 60%
since Clinton left office.

[jim]

Sancho Panza wrote:
>
> On 11/2/2013 8:19 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sancho Panza wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> That is rich. One of the biggest bloviators proves himself unable to
> >> post anything but the same old cant.
> >
> > Do you mean this:
> >
> > The facts you don't like are
> > that the income tax from the top 1% pays for
> > only 13% of federal spending while they get 25%
> > of the nation's income.
> >
> > Just ask I'll be happy to post it again.
>
> Until you can explain where the other 67, or now 87, percent of the
> income comes from, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Ha ha ha. Sounds like you don't want to hear that the
individual income taxpayers are paying for so little
of government.

You piss and moan when the
drinking fountains at National parks are turned off because
you like to pretend taxpayers are paying for that shit.

[jon_banquer]

Danny boy, I've got tons of machining and CADCAM posts up now that are relevant to home shop machinists and you ignore them?

This, after whining like a little bitch on a constant basis about lack of machining posts in this newsgroup.

What's your problem with these machines, asshole?

They doesn't fit in your dog house?

You can't program them?

You don't know CADCAM?

You're a lazy motherfucker who won't learn... that's a rhetorical question. Don't bother answering.

http://fadeceng.com/umc-mill/

http://fadeceng.com/htc-lathe/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-y03hhCCME

[jon_banquer]

On Saturday, November 2, 2013 12:40:10 PM UTC-7, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> [followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]
>
>
>
> On 11/2/2013 10:10 AM, jim lied:

>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>
> >>
>
> >>> The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
>
> >>> made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal
>
> >>> Revenue
>
> >>> Service data. And this doesn’t even count income that doesn’t show up as
>
> >>> adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
>
> >>
>
> >> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
>
> >> DID THEY PAY?
>
> >>
>
> >> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
>
> >> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
>
> >> pay 40% of total income tax.
>
> >>
>
> >> The rich pay far more than their share.
>
> >
>
> > No they don't.
>
>
>

> They do. Proved.

They don't. Not proved.

[Harold Burton]

In article <iLydnf0T_aqKr-jP...@bright.net>,

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> > On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
> >
> > > The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
> > > made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal Revenue
> > > Service data. And this doesn�t even count income that doesn�t show up as
> > > adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
> > >
> > > Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
> >
> > We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
> > DID THEY PAY?
> >
> > In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
> > of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
> > pay 40% of total income tax.
> >
> > The rich pay far more than their share.
>
> No they don't.

Yes they do

> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.

Cite?


OK, know where you're going. Most federal expenditures are things like
social security and medicare that should be covered by social security
and medicare payments, it's what the Democrats promised. Don't whine
because you democrats lied to us.

snicker



> That means the rich get 25% of income and their
> income tax payments cover about 13% of federal expenditures.
>
> They are paying closer to half their share.

[Harold Burton]

In article <UtqdnaYyQ5Qy3-jP...@bright.net>,

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:

> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> >

> > On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:10:49 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>

> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
> > >>
> > >> > The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
> > >> > made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal
> > >> > Revenue
> > >> > Service data. And this doesn�t even count income that doesn�t show up
> > >> > as
> > >> > adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
> > >> >
> > >> > Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
> > >>
> > >> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
> > >> DID THEY PAY?
> > >>
> > >> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
> > >> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
> > >> pay 40% of total income tax.
> > >>
> > >> The rich pay far more than their share.
> > >
> > >No they don't.
> >

> > Yes, they do.

> >
> > >Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
> >

> > We're only talking about income tax.
>

> That's right I'm only talking about income tax

> Individual income tax only covers 1/3 of federal
> expenditures.


Bingo, thank the Democrats for that.

snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article <h-6dncO_VJ9awOjP...@bright.net>,

Than the Democrat congresses for that.


snicker

[Harold Burton]

In article <aY6dnQpJmbna8ejP...@bright.net>,

Don't think we don't appreciate it.


laugh . . . laugh . . . laugh

[Harold Burton]

In article <9-mdnbK6FoUWC-jP...@bright.net>,

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:

> Sancho Panza wrote:
>
> >
> > That is rich. One of the biggest bloviators proves himself unable to
> > post anything but the same old cant.
>
> Do you mean this:
>
> The facts you don't like are
> that the income tax from the top 1% pays for
> only 13% of federal spending while they get 25%
> of the nation's income.

Don't think we don't appreciate it, it's probably why so many rich vote
democrat, they keep writing such nice tax laws.

[First-Post]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 21:40:32 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

>
>

Irrelevant to your argument that the wealthy pay less in taxes.

Your non sequitor response to the question posed by the poster just
proves that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You could end any argument immediately if you simply gave a
straightforward answer that actually proved your point.
So far you have presented nothing relevant to the topic of the thread
which has to do with taxes and who pays how much.
But since you are well aware that the real numbers do not add up in
your favor you have done nothing but attempt to sidestep and distract
from the actual topic.

You are a loser and are the only one posting in this thread that
doesn't see it.

[jim]

Doesn't matter who you give credit to, the fact remains
that the income taxpayer is not paying for the share of
goods and services that they receive from govt.

[jim]

First-Post wrote:
>
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 21:40:32 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Sancho Panza wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/2/2013 8:19 PM, jim wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Sancho Panza wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> That is rich. One of the biggest bloviators proves himself unable to
> >> >> post anything but the same old cant.
> >> >
> >> > Do you mean this:
> >> >
> >> > The facts you don't like are
> >> > that the income tax from the top 1% pays for
> >> > only 13% of federal spending while they get 25%
> >> > of the nation's income.
> >> >
> >> > Just ask I'll be happy to post it again.
> >>
> >> Until you can explain where the other 67, or now 87, percent of the
> >> income comes from, you don't have a leg to stand on.
> >
> >Ha ha ha. Sounds like you don't want to hear that the
> >individual income taxpayers are paying for so little
> >of government.
> >
> > You piss and moan when the
> >drinking fountains at National parks are turned off because
> >you like to pretend taxpayers are paying for that shit.
>
> Irrelevant to your argument that the wealthy pay less in taxes.

I never argued that the rich pay less.

I simply point out that the top 1% get 25% of income and
yet pay for only 13% of federal govt outlays with their
income tax.
All individual taxpayers have been paying for less than
30% of govt while they have been receiving about 80% of
national income.

Those aren't arguments those are statements of fact.

>
> You could end any argument immediately if you simply gave a
> straightforward answer that actually proved your point.

There is no argument. There is just you squirming and
dancing to avoid looking at data.

Here is the OMB data
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Take an example of what you find there:
Individual income tax collected $920 billion in
2009. The federal govt spent $3.5 trillion.
That works out to 26% of spending was covered by
individual income tax payers.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 16:13:44 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

>
>
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>
>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:20:37 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>

>> >> The rich pay more than their fair share of income tax. That's a fact.

>> >
>> >
>> >They don't pay their share of federal govt spending.
>>

>> Thanks for admitting that they pay more than their fair share of
>> income tax.
>
>They don't pay for their share of the goodies [..]

Thanks for admitting that they pay more than their fair share of
income tax.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 16:19:06 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

>
>
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:17:13 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:21:38 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:10:49 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
>> >> >> >> > made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal Revenue
>> >> >> >> > Service data. And this doesn�t even count income that doesn�t show up as
>> >> >> >> > adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
>> >> >> >> DID THEY PAY?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
>> >> >> >> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
>> >> >> >> pay 40% of total income tax.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The rich pay far more than their share.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No they don't.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, they do.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We're only talking about income tax.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's right I'm only talking about income tax
>> >>

>> >> In that case, you're full of shit, since the rich pay FAR more than

>> >> their fair share of income tax.
>> >>
>> >

>> >The income tax they pay covers [..]
>>
>> Irrelevant to the discussion.
>>
>
>There is no "discussion". You just don't want
>to hear the facts, which is why you snip the facts.

No, I snip your bullshit misidrection and swerving. We're talking
about who pays most of the income taxes, and by a large margin, it's
the rich, and everybody knows it.

[jim]

Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> >
> >There is no "discussion". You just don't want
> >to hear the facts, which is why you snip the facts.
>
> No, I snip your bullshit misidrection and swerving. We're talking
> about who pays most of the income taxes, and by a large margin, it's
> the rich, and everybody knows it.

HA HA HA You're free to babble about whatever
you want.

What you run away and hide from is this fact:

The income tax from the top 1% pays for

[jim]

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:
>
> > The rich have 25% of the income and their income
> > tax pays for 13% of the federal spending.
> >
> > That looks like they pay about half their share to me.
> >
>
> No, about twice their share. They USE about 3% of federal spending.

Let see you come up with some legitimate data to back
that claim.

>
> 20% of the public consumes 80% of the national budget. (mostly in the form
> of welfare and 'free services' like hospitalization, free medicines, )
>

If you take all of social security, health, welfare and
Medicare from the federal budget the govt is still spending
more than what individual income tax payers pay in.

Look at the budget items by function for last year (2012):

Defense and veterans benefits 801 billion
physical resources (transportation parks, etc) 215 billion
Interest paid out 220 billion
general govt (justice, international affairs etc) 178 billion

Total spent 1414 billion

individual income tax collected 1132 billion

[jim]

Harold Burton wrote:
>
> In article <iLydnf0T_aqKr-jP...@bright.net>,
> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote:
>
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > >
> > > On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
> > >
> > > > The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
> > > > made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal Revenue
> > > > Service data. And this doesn’t even count income that doesn’t show up as
> > > > adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
> > > >
> > > > Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
> > >
> > > We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
> > > DID THEY PAY?
> > >
> > > In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
> > > of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
> > > pay 40% of total income tax.
> > >
> > > The rich pay far more than their share.
> >
> > No they don't.
>
> Yes they do
>
> > Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
>
> Cite?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 05:37:17 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

>
>
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>> >
>> >There is no "discussion". You just don't want
>> >to hear the facts, which is why you snip the facts.
>>
>> No, I snip your bullshit misidrection and swerving. We're talking
>> about who pays most of the income taxes, and by a large margin, it's
>> the rich, and everybody knows it.
>
>HA HA HA You're free to babble about whatever
>you want.

Of course I am. And I'm talking about the fact that the rich pay most
of the income tax collected.

By far.

[jim]

Even that statement is false.
The top 1% pay for 40% of income tax.
They don't pay most of the income tax collected.

But that fact isn't very meaningful given
that income tax pays for so little of govt. In
the last few years income tax has paid for less
than 30% of the federal govt spending. That means the
total share of govt paid for by the top 1% is only 13%.
Meanwhile their share of income is 25%.

[jim]

Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 16:13:44 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:20:37 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The rich pay more than their fair share of income tax. That's a fact.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >They don't pay their share of federal govt spending.
> >>
> >> Thanks for admitting that they pay more than their fair share of
> >> income tax.
> >

> > they don't pay for their share of the goodies and
> > services from the federal govt.

> Thanks for admitting that they pay more than their fair share of
> income tax.

Thanks for being brain dead.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Sunday, November 3, 2013 6:01:57 AM UTC-5, jim wrote:

>
> Doesn't matter who you give credit to, the fact remains
>
> that the income taxpayer is not paying for the share of
>
> goods and services that they receive from govt.

Whoa. You are confusing the income the rich receive with the goods and sorvices the rich receive from the government.

\ Dan

[dca...@krl.org]

On Sunday, November 3, 2013 7:12:51 AM UTC-5, jim wrote:





>
>
> But that fact isn't very meaningful given
>
> that income tax pays for so little of govt. In
>
> the last few years income tax has paid for less
>
> than 30% of the federal govt spending. That means the
>
> total share of govt paid for by the top 1% is only 13%.
>
> Meanwhile their share of income is 25%.

Wrong again. The total the rich pay is more than just the income tax they pay.

Dan

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 06:16:58 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>

wrote:

>
>
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 16:13:44 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:20:37 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The rich pay more than their fair share of income tax. That's a fact.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >They don't pay their share of federal govt spending.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for admitting that they pay more than their fair share of
>> >> income tax.
>> >
>> > they don't pay for their share of the goodies and
>> > services from the federal govt.
>
>> Thanks for admitting that they pay more than their fair share of
>> income tax.
>

>Thanks for [..]

...reminding you of what we're talking about. I know it gets tough
with your ADD and all.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 06:12:51 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>

wrote:

>
>
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 05:37:17 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >There is no "discussion". You just don't want
>> >> >to hear the facts, which is why you snip the facts.
>> >>
>> >> No, I snip your bullshit misidrection and swerving. We're talking
>> >> about who pays most of the income taxes, and by a large margin, it's
>> >> the rich, and everybody knows it.
>> >
>> >HA HA HA You're free to babble about whatever
>> >you want.
>>
>> Of course I am. And I'm talking about the fact that the rich pay most
>> of the income tax collected.
>>
>> By far.
>
>Even that statement is false.

No

>The top 1% pay for 40% of income tax.

I never said the top 1%. Fuckin' A, son, why do you keep moving the
goal posts?

>They don't pay most of the income tax collected.

The rich pay most of the income tax collected. By far. Hands down. No
question.

You're stupid to even QUESTION it, that's how much of an established
fact it is.

[Lloyd E. Sponenburgh]

"dca...@krl.org" <dca...@krl.org> fired this volley in
news:bbc354ac-e6ef-4a7e...@googlegroups.com:

> Wrong again. The total the rich pay is more than just the income tax
> they pay.

Exactly. A poor man is at the bottom of the tax pyramid. His income
generates one tax stream, and often it's a negative stream, as he
consumes federal resources worth more than his contribution to them.


A rich man's income generates dozens of other taxable 'streams of money'
flowing into every corner of the economy.

Not only do the rich consume less share of federal resources than
represented by the taxes they pay personally, they also create taxable
incomes for many other businesses and individuals.

It's the 'economic multiplier' at work.

Lloyd

[jim]

The rich aren't paying millions to buy politicians because
they get nothing from govt.

[jim]

"dca...@krl.org" wrote:
>
> On Sunday, November 3, 2013 7:12:51 AM UTC-5, jim wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > But that fact isn't very meaningful given
> >
> > that income tax pays for so little of govt. In
> >
> > the last few years income tax has paid for less
> >
> > than 30% of the federal govt spending. That means the
> >
> > total share of govt paid for by the top 1% is only 13%.
> >
> > Meanwhile their share of income is 25%.
>
> Wrong again.

Those are facts. Give a source that says they are wrong.

[jim]

You keep reminding me that there are facts you don't
want to hear. To wit:

The top 1% pay for 13% of federal govt expenditures.
the rich receive 25% of income.

[jim]

Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
> On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 06:12:51 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 05:37:17 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There is no "discussion". You just don't want
> >> >> >to hear the facts, which is why you snip the facts.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, I snip your bullshit misidrection and swerving. We're talking
> >> >> about who pays most of the income taxes, and by a large margin, it's
> >> >> the rich, and everybody knows it.
> >> >
> >> >HA HA HA You're free to babble about whatever
> >> >you want.
> >>
> >> Of course I am. And I'm talking about the fact that the rich pay most
> >> of the income tax collected.
> >>
> >> By far.
> >
> >Even that statement is false.
>
> No
>
> >The top 1% pay for 40% of income tax.
>
> I never said the top 1%. Fuckin' A, son, why do you keep moving the
> goal posts?

I got news for you nobody is paying any attention to
the fantasy football game you're playing.


Here is another set of facts you don't like.

Those people who pay all of income tax have
been paying less than 30% of federal expenditures.
Those taxpayers receive 80% of total income.

That doesn't look like they are paying their share.

[jim]

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" wrote:
>
> "dca...@krl.org" <dca...@krl.org> fired this volley in
> news:bbc354ac-e6ef-4a7e...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > Wrong again. The total the rich pay is more than just the income tax
> > they pay.
>
> Exactly. A poor man is at the bottom of the tax pyramid. His income
> generates one tax stream, and often it's a negative stream, as he
> consumes federal resources worth more than his contribution to them.

The same story is true of the rich man.

>
> A rich man's income generates dozens of other taxable 'streams of money'
> flowing into every corner of the economy.

The same story can be told of the poor people.

>
> Not only do the rich consume less share of federal resources than
> represented by the taxes they pay personally, they also create taxable
> incomes for many other businesses and individuals.

If you cut the federal spending in half. The incomes
of the rich will fall by more than half.

>
> It's the 'economic multiplier' at work.

That is correct.

The only difference between rich and poor is who controls
the story telling and propaganda apparatus

[Larry Jaques]

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 07:05:05 -0600, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
<lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote:

>"dca...@krl.org" <dca...@krl.org> fired this volley in
>news:bbc354ac-e6ef-4a7e...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> Wrong again. The total the rich pay is more than just the income tax
>> they pay.
>
>Exactly. A poor man is at the bottom of the tax pyramid. His income
>generates one tax stream, and often it's a negative stream, as he
>consumes federal resources worth more than his contribution to them.
>
>
>A rich man's income generates dozens of other taxable 'streams of money'
>flowing into every corner of the economy.

I'd say "A rich man's income _can_ generate other taxable money
streams.", but many are invested external to the US economy.

>Not only do the rich consume less share of federal resources than
>represented by the taxes they pay personally, they also create taxable
>incomes for many other businesses and individuals.
>
>It's the 'economic multiplier' at work.

And that's a Good Thing.

--
The beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it. --Thomas Jefferson

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 07:47:38 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>

wrote:

>
>
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 06:16:58 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 16:13:44 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:20:37 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The rich pay more than their fair share of income tax. That's a fact.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >They don't pay their share of federal govt spending.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks for admitting that they pay more than their fair share of
>> >> >> income tax.
>> >> >
>> >> > they don't pay for their share of the goodies and
>> >> > services from the federal govt.
>> >
>> >> Thanks for admitting that they pay more than their fair share of
>> >> income tax.
>> >
>> >Thanks for [..]
>>
>> ...reminding you of what we're talking about.
>
>

>You keep reminding me that [..]

And you seem too stupid to get it. Why is that, Jimmy?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 08:06:11 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>

wrote:

>
>
>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 06:12:51 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 05:37:17 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >There is no "discussion". You just don't want
>> >> >> >to hear the facts, which is why you snip the facts.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, I snip your bullshit misidrection and swerving. We're talking
>> >> >> about who pays most of the income taxes, and by a large margin, it's
>> >> >> the rich, and everybody knows it.
>> >> >
>> >> >HA HA HA You're free to babble about whatever
>> >> >you want.
>> >>
>> >> Of course I am. And I'm talking about the fact that the rich pay most
>> >> of the income tax collected.
>> >>
>> >> By far.
>> >
>> >Even that statement is false.
>>
>> No
>>
>> >The top 1% pay for 40% of income tax.
>>
>> I never said the top 1%. Fuckin' A, son, why do you keep moving the
>> goal posts?
>

>I got news for you [..]

No, you don't. Leftists ALWAYS try to move the goal posts when they
are confronted with facts, if they don't try out and out lies.

We both know the rich pay the LARGE majority of income tax.

"Leftards: batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of
you."
-Harold Burton

[jim]

Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:


> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> The rich pay more than their fair share of income tax. That's a fact.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >They don't pay their share of federal govt spending.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks for admitting that they pay more than their fair share of
> >> >> >> income tax.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > they don't pay for their share of the goodies and
> >> >> > services from the federal govt.
> >> >
> >> >> Thanks for admitting that they pay more than their fair share of
> >> >> income tax.
> >> >

> >> >Thanks for admitting you're brain dead.

> >>
> >> ...reminding you of what we're talking about.
> >
> >

> > You keep reminding me that there are facts you don't
> > want to hear. To wit:
> >
> > The top 1% pay for 13% of federal govt expenditures.
> > the rich receive 25% of income.
>

> And you seem too stupid to get it.

I get that you snip the facts you don't want to hear.

For instance, you will snip these facts:

The top 1% receive 25% of income and yet their
income tax pays for only 13% of federal spending.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 09:01:58 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

>
>

>Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> The rich pay more than their fair share of income tax. That's a fact.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >They don't pay their share of federal govt spending.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thanks for admitting that they pay more than their fair share of
>> >> >> >> income tax.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > they don't pay for their share of the goodies and
>> >> >> > services from the federal govt.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Thanks for admitting that they pay more than their fair share of
>> >> >> income tax.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks for admitting you're brain dead.
>> >>
>> >> ...reminding you of what we're talking about.
>> >
>> >
>> > You keep reminding me that there are facts you don't
>> > want to hear. To wit:
>> >
>> > The top 1% pay for 13% of federal govt expenditures.
>> > the rich receive 25% of income.
>>
>> And you seem too stupid to get it.
>
>

>I get that you snip the facts [..]

You mean the fact that the rich pay the majority of income taxes?

Why would I snip that?

[dca...@krl.org]

On Sunday, November 3, 2013 8:44:03 AM UTC-5, jim wrote:


>
>
> > Wrong again.
>
>
>
> Those are facts. Give a source that says they are wrong.

I wrote "Wrong again. The total the rich pay is more than just the income tax they pay." How come you snip off most of what I wrote and then claim to be using facts. Do you not agree that the rich pay more than just income tax to the federal government?

Dan

[jim]

"dca...@krl.org" wrote:
>
> On Sunday, November 3, 2013 8:44:03 AM UTC-5, jim wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > Wrong again.
> >
> >
> >
> > Those are facts. Give a source that says they are wrong.
>
> I wrote "Wrong again. The total the rich pay is more than just the income tax they pay."

That doesn't make this statement wrong:

The top 1% pay income tax that covers only 13% of
federal spending and yet they are given 25% of the income.

> How come you snip off most of what I wrote and then claim to
> be using facts.

Your statement "wrong again" was not correct.
You started with a false claim and
The rest was not relevant to that false claim.

> Do you not agree that the rich pay more than just income
> tax to the federal government?

Almost everyone pays a lot more than just income tax.
Taxes have a much greater impact on the poor than the rich.

Every wage earners income is taxed at 15% federal flat
payroll tax. If they make enough income then income tax
is added on top of that.

The average person with income in the top 1% are paying
around 15% in tax on their taxable income.
The top 1% are not paying anymore in taxes than the lowest
wage earners and they pay less than the middle income wage
earners.

[dca...@krl.org]

On Sunday, November 3, 2013 6:45:22 PM UTC-5, jim wrote:

>
> Your statement "wrong again" was not correct.
>

I am going to wait until you post six on topic posts before replying. Meanwhile I disagree with you.

Dan

[R. Dean]

On 11/2/2013 4:15 PM, jim wrote:

>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The rich pay far more than their share.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No they don't.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yes, they do.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> We're only talking about income tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's right I'm only talking about income tax

>>>>> Individual income tax only covers 1/3 of federal
>>>>> expenditures.
>>>>
>>>> Which is irrelevant to whether or not the wealthy pay the lions share
>>>> or not.
>>>
>>> It's irrelevant to
>>
>> Expenditure is irrelevant to the topic.
>
> Income tax on the rich covers only 13% of federal
> expenditures while they get 25% of income.
>
The rich are _not_responsible for the expenditure of the
government. The top 25% (percent) pay for a higher portion of
government spending than the remaining 75 percent.
>
>
> Those are facts you don't want to hear.
>
This is not relative, consequently there is no pertinent facts
being reported.

us.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=avg&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&type=AVG&param1=rZLbbpwwEIafBt-BfABjLriA3aSqlEpVekjvKuMDrFQONWTbvH1_0261VVUpqiLQeJgZj8ffjznZOik7ruRNexB5qo5tkeYNb9Kq5QcYRVspmyPNeVJaYmsmlJCK

[R. Dean]

On 11/2/2013 4:17 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>

>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:21:38 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:10:49 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
>>>>>>> made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal Revenue
>>>>>>> Service data. And this doesn’t even count income that doesn’t show up as
>>>>>>> adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
>>>>>> DID THEY PAY?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
>>>>>> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
>>>>>> pay 40% of total income tax.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> The rich pay far more than their share.
>>>>>
>>>>> No they don't.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, they do.
>>>>
>>>>> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
>>>>
>>>> We're only talking about income tax.
>>>
>>> That's right I'm only talking about income tax
>>

>> In that case, you're full of shit, since the rich pay FAR more than

>> their fair share of income tax.
>>
>

> The income tax they pay covers 13% of federal spending while

> they get 25% of income.
>

Exactly why do you think this matters?

[SteveB]

On 11/2/2013 10:10 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>
>>> The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
>>> made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal Revenue
>>> Service data. And this doesn’t even count income that doesn’t show up as
>>> adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.

Go go the library. You DO know what a library is, don't you? Look it
up in the yellow pages. Check out books like "101 WAYS TO SAVE ON YOUR
TAXES," and hundreds more. Learn how YOU can get the same tax breaks as
them, or at least a lot that will apply to YOUR tax brackets. Structure
your assets and estate so that you will end up in the best position you can.

Don't blame people who take the time to get facts and education.

And quit whining.

Steve

[R. Dean]

On 11/2/2013 4:20 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>
>>

>> The rich pay more than their fair share of income tax. That's a fact.
>
>
> They don't pay their share of federal govt spending.

> They only pay for 13% while they get 25% of income.
>
> That looks like about half their share to me.
>
What do you think could cut government expenditures to equal
government revenues? The Rich are no responsible for government
spending.

[jim]

"R. Dean" wrote:
>
> On 11/2/2013 4:15 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The rich pay far more than their share.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No they don't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, they do.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We're only talking about income tax.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's right I'm only talking about income tax
> >>>>> Individual income tax only covers 1/3 of federal
> >>>>> expenditures.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is irrelevant to whether or not the wealthy pay the lions share
> >>>> or not.
> >>>
> >>> It's irrelevant to
> >>
> >> Expenditure is irrelevant to the topic.
> >
> > Income tax on the rich covers only 13% of federal
> > expenditures while they get 25% of income.
> >
> The rich are _not_responsible for the expenditure of the
> government.

How about the 800 billion bailout of the rich in late 2008.

[jim]

It doesn't matter to me, but why don't
you ask that to all the idiots in this thread who
have been running away from those facts. It looks like
it matters a lot to them.

[jim]

If federal spending was cut down to equal federal revenue
a large portion of the private sector (many of them who
are rich) would soon go broke.

Balance the budget and the downward economic spiral that
started in 2008 would resume and the US would be again in a
debt-deflation depression far worse than the Great
Depression.

And just like the Great Depression the rich have far
more to lose than anyone else.

http://blog2.tshirt-doctor.com/images20/121911_0526_Movementatt5.png

[R. Dean]

This was not for the rich per se, but this supposedly was to save the
top 10 corporations from failure. I think they should have been allowed
to fail. Same for G.M. and Chrysler and other projects such as the
"green" energy companies etc. However, failure would have cost
thousands of jobs in the case of the auto industry.

This article might be of interest to you:
>
www.theonion.com/articles/700-billion-bailout-celebrated-with-lavish-800-bil,2628/

[Johnny Johnson]

In article <Mtidnb-z0qaN0ujP...@bright.net>, jim
<sjed...@mwt.net> says...
>
> First-Post wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:21:38 -0500, jim <sjed...@mwt.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:10:49 -0500, jim <sjed...@mwt.net>

>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes
>>>>>>> still made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to
>>>>>>> Internal Revenue Service data. And this doesn't even count income
>>>>>>> that doesn't show up as adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt
>>>>>>> interest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
>>>>>> DID THEY PAY?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their
share
>>>>>> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but
>>>>>> they pay 40% of total income tax.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> The rich pay far more than their share.
>>>>>
>>>>> No they don't.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, they do.
>>>>
>>>>> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
>>>>
>>>> We're only talking about income tax.
>>>
>>> That's right I'm only talking about income tax
>>> Individual income tax only covers 1/3 of federal
>>> expenditures.
>>
>> Which is irrelevant to whether or not the wealthy pay the lions'
>> share or not.
>

> It's irrelevant to whether they pay the piss ant's share also.
>
> The income tax of the wealthy pays for about 13% of
> govt expenditures. That is a fact.
>
> You can spin that to say that is more than a
> lion pays and that would be true.
>
"Spin" this, Jimmy:

John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.
...
Progressives say, if you're so worried about the deficit, raise taxes! There
are lots of rich people around, squandering money. On my show, David Callahan
of the group Demos put it this way: "Wealthy Americans who have done so well
in the past decade should help get us out."

But it's a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our
deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million,
the take would be just $616 billion. That's only a third of this year's
deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.

It's the spending, stupid.
...
Progressives want to take more money from some---by force---and spend much of
it on programs that have repeatedly failed. It sounds less noble when plainly
stated.

Progressives claim an increase in tax rates won't stop producers from
producing. But they presumably understand that people don't work for free.
When the top marginal rate was 90 percent, actor Ronald Reagan worked just
half the year. As soon as he made enough money such that every additional
dollar was taxed at 90 percent, he stopped working and went off to ride
horses. Reagan later said that woke him up to the damage that high taxes
impose.

Maryland created a special "tax on the rich" that legislators said would
bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million. Some of
Maryland's rich just left the state. When New York state hiked its income tax
on millionaires, billionaire Tom Golisano moved to Florida, which has no
personal income tax. "[M]y personal income tax last year would've been
$13,800 a day," he told us. "Would you like to write a check for $13,800 a
day to a state government, as opposed to moving to another state?"
...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/2012/04/03/john-stossel-tax-the-rich-
the-rich-dont-have-enough-really/

Also:

What The Combined Wealth Of All 1,426 Billionaires Could Do
By Brian Solomon, Forbes Staff
...
If they were feeling charitable, they could donate the money [their combined
wealth of $5.431T] to the U.S. national debt, but that would only pay it down
by a third."
...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2013/03/04/what-the-combined-wealth-
of-all-1426-billionaires-could-do/

[Johnny Johnson]

In article <h-6dncO_VJ9awOjP...@bright.net>, jim
<sjed...@mwt.net>says...

>
> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:21:38 -0500, jim <sjed...@mwt.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:10:49 -0500, jim <sjed...@mwt.net>says...
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
>>>>
>>>> We're only talking about income tax.
>>>
>>>That's right I'm only talking about income tax
>>

>> In that case, you're full of shit, since the rich pay FAR more than

>> their fair share of income tax.
>

> The income tax they pay covers 13% of federal spending while

> they get 25% of income.
>

So tell us, Jimmie: what percentage of your gross income do you give Unca
Barack every year?

[jim]

Johnny Johnson wrote:

> >>>>
> >>>>> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
> >>>>
> >>>> We're only talking about income tax.
> >>>
> >>> That's right I'm only talking about income tax
> >>> Individual income tax only covers 1/3 of federal
> >>> expenditures.
> >>
> >> Which is irrelevant to whether or not the wealthy pay the lions'
> >> share or not.
> >
> > It's irrelevant to whether they pay the piss ant's share also.
> >
> > The income tax of the wealthy pays for about 13% of
> > govt expenditures. That is a fact.
> >
> > You can spin that to say that is more than a
> > lion pays and that would be true.
> >
> "Spin" this, Jimmy:
>
> John Stossel: Tax The Rich? The Rich Don't Have Enough. Really.
> ...
> Progressives say, if you're so worried about the deficit,

I'm not worried about the deficit. Nor does it bother me that
the top 1% pay income tax covers for 13% of federal spending
while they are given 25% of income. The rich are just like everyone
else. Their portion of federal taxes doesn't cover their
share of the federal benefits.

[F. George McDuffee]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 14:18:13 -0600, Johnny Johnson
<TopCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million,
>the take would be just $616 billion. That's only a third of this year's
>deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.

<snip>

While this is correct from a strictly accounting
perspective, the collateral effects of grossly increased/
significantly more steeply progressive income taxes and a
possible wealth levy, reducing their aggregated wealth to
human/mortal levels would have considerably larger (and
IMNSHO, very positive) effects such as forcing them to live
in the same world everyone else, and limiting their
socio-political influence to reasonable levels, e.g. no more
Soroses, Bloombergs, Murdochs, Singers, or Koch Brothers.

With their undue socio-political influence removed,
sane/rational legislation could at last be enacted such as a
revised IRS code, reasonable SEC/CFTC/FTC regulations could
be issued to prevent/limit economic disruptions, and logical
foreign/immigration policies, all of which put the long-term
best interests of the majority first, could be created and
implemented.

It is not the hyper rich are intrinsically bad people,
rather they are simply toxic for the rest of us, due to
their drive for more, MORE, *MORE!*; denial of the problems
their actions cause (such as massive unemployment, poverty,
de-industrialization, and in far too many cases war); and
their isolation from the world and ethical standards most of
us must live in/by. History shows the hyper rich are
antithetical to, and a significant danger for, all
representative forms of government, particularly republics.

[jim]

It is a higher percentage than Romney reported that he paid.

Even hamburger flippers have their wages taxed at 15%, which
is more than Romney claimed.

[Sancho Panza]

Can't figure out how to earn capital gains?

>
> Even hamburger flippers have their wages taxed at 15%, which
> is more than Romney claimed.

Cite???



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Sancho Panza]

Every sentence in that paragraph is pure leftist credo. Money doesn't
mean anything as long as the leftist has his.

[Sancho Panza]

On 11/2/2013 10:54 PM, First-Post wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 21:40:32 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/2/2013 8:19 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is rich. One of the biggest bloviators proves himself unable to
>>>>> post anything but the same old cant.
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean this:
>>>>
>>>> The facts you don't like are
>>>> that the income tax from the top 1% pays for
>>>> only 13% of federal spending while they get 25%
>>>> of the nation's income.
>>>>
>>>> Just ask I'll be happy to post it again.
>>>
>>> Until you can explain where the other 67, or now 87, percent of the
>>> income comes from, you don't have a leg to stand on.
>>
>> Ha ha ha. Sounds like you don't want to hear that the
>> individual income taxpayers are paying for so little
>> of government.
>>
>> You piss and moan when the
>> drinking fountains at National parks are turned off because
>> you like to pretend taxpayers are paying for that shit.
>
> Irrelevant to your argument that the wealthy pay less in taxes.
>
> Your non sequitor response to the question posed by the poster just
> proves that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
>
> You could end any argument immediately if you simply gave a
> straightforward answer that actually proved your point.
> So far you have presented nothing relevant to the topic of the thread
> which has to do with taxes and who pays how much.
> But since you are well aware that the real numbers do not add up in
> your favor you have done nothing but attempt to sidestep and distract
> from the actual topic.

So once again you remain totally ignorant about who pays for the
remaining 87 percent of federal spending. Your posts more than speak for
a startling lack of knowledge and a hellbent ideology.

[First-Post]

On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 15:17:57 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
wrote:

>
>

You're lying. Plain and simple. The fact that you're afraid to give
the actual percentage that you paid just shows that you really have
jack shit to stand on.

Hamburger flippers aren't taxed at 15% you lying imbecile.
The average tax rate paid by people making $34,338 or less is 2.37%
according to the IRS.
You are a pathetic liar and have yet to back up a single goddamned lie
that you spew.

Those in that bottom tax bracket pay 2.4% of the total taxes paid
while earning 11.7% of the total AGI.

So by your logic THEY are due for a tax hike as well by your
ridiculous definition of what a "fair share" is asshole.

[R. Dean]

On 11/2/2013 2:25 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>

>> On 11/2/2013 1:16 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:10:49 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>

>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
>>>>>> made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal Revenue

>>>>>> Service data. And this doesn�t even count income that doesn�t show up as

>>>>>> adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
>>>>>
>>>>> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
>>>>> DID THEY PAY?
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
>>>>> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
>>>>> pay 40% of total income tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rich pay far more than their share.
>>>>
>>>> No they don't.
>>>
>>> Yes, they do.
>>>

>>>> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
>>>

>>> We're only talking about income tax. Note how you have to shuck and
>>> jive and twist to convince yourself.
>>
>> He still can't explain where the remainder -- apparently an ever
>> changing figure at 67 percent today -- is derived.
>>
>
> What are you some helpless kitten stuck in a tree?
>
> Here is the complete breakdown of the federal outlays
> and receipts. Maybe if you whine loud enough, someone will
> do your research for you.
>
If the government were to take 100% of the income the rich have
it still would no balance the budget. The Gov would still be
spending more than it takes in. Thanks to Bush and Obama.
But taxing the rich doesn't work. GE for example a corp tight
with Obama earned 14 billion dollars in 2011 and paid zero
in income taxes. The super rich set up off-shore accounts which
are off limits to the IRS. However, the small business owner is
not, and this is where most jobs are created. By taxing these
businesses, they cannot expand their business and hire additional
employes.

>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
>

[Jim Wilkins]

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
news:bJGdnYY8kuhEM-fP...@bright.net...

>
> I'm not worried about the deficit.

So you are a dupe or shill for the Chinese government's loan-to-own
scheme.

[jim]

Sancho Panza wrote:
>
> On 11/6/2013 4:17 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > Johnny Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <h-6dncO_VJ9awOjP...@bright.net>, jim
> >> <sjed...@mwt.net>says...
> >>>
> >>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:21:38 -0500, jim <sjed...@mwt.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:10:49 -0500, jim <sjed...@mwt.net>says...
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We're only talking about income tax.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's right I'm only talking about income tax
> >>>>
> >>>> In that case, you're full of shit, since the rich pay FAR more than
> >>>> their fair share of income tax.
> >>>
> >>> The income tax they pay covers 13% of federal spending while
> >>> they get 25% of income.
> >>>
> >> So tell us, Jimmie: what percentage of your gross income do you give Unca
> >> Barack every year?
> >
> > It is a higher percentage than Romney reported that he paid.
>
> Can't figure out how to earn capital gains?
>

That would be taking welfare.

> >
> > Even hamburger flippers have their wages taxed at 15%, which
> > is more than Romney claimed.
>
> Cite???

There is not much capital gains in hamburger flipping.
Every wage earner that makes between $400 and $105,000 has
a 15% flat tax bite.

[jim]

That is about right.
and
Any complete sentence is pure leftist credo to you.

[jim]

We know that it isn't paid for by the rich with their income tax.

[jim]

The fact that some of the tax bite is labeled "employer
contribution" doesn't fool anybody although the
millionaires in Congress who set it up may think
it does. The entire 15% is a tax bite on the wage earner.

[jim]

"R. Dean" wrote:
>
> On 11/2/2013 2:25 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sancho Panza wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/2/2013 1:16 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:10:49 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m...@mwt.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 11/2/2013 8:56 AM, Bugster, lying racist shitbag *looter*, lied:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The fortunate 400 people with the highest adjusted gross incomes still
> >>>>>> made, on average, $202 million each in 2009, according to Internal Revenue

> >>>>>> Service data. And this doesn’t even count income that doesn’t show up as

> >>>>>> adjusted gross income, such as tax-exempt interest.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yet the top 400 paid an average federal income tax rate
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We're not interested in their "rate", you stupid fuckstain. HOW MUCH
> >>>>> DID THEY PAY?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In fact, fuckstain, the rich pay a larger share of tax than their share
> >>>>> of income. People in the top 1% receive about 25% of income, but they
> >>>>> pay 40% of total income tax.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The rich pay far more than their share.
> >>>>
> >>>> No they don't.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, they do.
> >>>
> >>>> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
> >>>
> >>> We're only talking about income tax. Note how you have to shuck and
> >>> jive and twist to convince yourself.
> >>
> >> He still can't explain where the remainder -- apparently an ever
> >> changing figure at 67 percent today -- is derived.
> >>
> >
> > What are you some helpless kitten stuck in a tree?
> >
> > Here is the complete breakdown of the federal outlays
> > and receipts. Maybe if you whine loud enough, someone will
> > do your research for you.
> >
> If the government were to take 100% of the income the rich have
> it still would no balance the budget.

So who said it would? I haven't suggested any additional
tax on the rich.

I'm simply pointing out a truth you don't like to
hear and that is that the rich don't pay for very
much of federal spending with their income tax.
The top 1% pay for about 13% while they receive
about 25% of the income. There is no reason to
be whining and bemoaning the awful tax plight of the
rich. Go find some other group who actually is being
treated unfairly to cry about.

[Sancho Panza]

On 11/6/2013 7:21 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>
>> On 11/6/2013 4:17 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Johnny Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <h-6dncO_VJ9awOjP...@bright.net>, jim
>>>> <sjed...@mwt.net>says...
>>>>>
>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 13:21:38 -0500, jim <sjed...@mwt.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:10:49 -0500, jim <sjed...@mwt.net>says...
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Income tax only covers 1/3 of federal expenditures.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We're only talking about income tax.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's right I'm only talking about income tax
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In that case, you're full of shit, since the rich pay FAR more than
>>>>>> their fair share of income tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> The income tax they pay covers 13% of federal spending while
>>>>> they get 25% of income.
>>>>>
>>>> So tell us, Jimmie: what percentage of your gross income do you give Unca
>>>> Barack every year?
>>>
>>> It is a higher percentage than Romney reported that he paid.
>>
>> Can't figure out how to earn capital gains?
>>
>
> That would be taking welfare.

Another clarion demonstration of not understanding even fundamental
economics. Here we have someone who professes to be unable understand
that welfare recipients risk nothing except their self-respect.

>
>>>
>>> Even hamburger flippers have their wages taxed at 15%, which
>>> is more than Romney claimed.
>>
>> Cite???
>
> There is not much capital gains in hamburger flipping.
> Every wage earner that makes between $400 and $105,000 has
> a 15% flat tax bite.

Cite?

[Sancho Panza]

The OP also ignores the payment aspects of the EIC. That is if he even
has a clue as to what the EIC is. At the rate he is spewing pure hooey,
I'll take the over on that one.