Financial wealth, or JUST WHO SHOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THIS?
John Smith
If you look at the figures on this page, you will find, in 2007, in America:
1) The top 1% have 42.7 of the financial wealth.
2) The next 19% have 50.3% of the wealth.
3) The bottom 80% have 7.0% of the wealth.
So, according to those figures, the top 20% of the population have 42.7
+ 50.3 = 93% of the financial wealth.
This situation has worsened since 2007 ...
I'd say we tax those top 20% of the population, what say all of you?
Regards,
JS
John Smith
Of course, I forgot the link in the above:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Regards,
JS
Klaus Schadenfreude
You're an idiot. That's what we all say.
John Smith
No, but you are one confused moron!
It is the University of California at Santa Cruz who you are calling idiots.
Again, you confuse the messenger with the message!
Don't worry, it just takes some longer than others to figure it out ...
Regards,
JS
Dave LaRue
> On 5/21/2011 4:42 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>>> John Smith<bit_b...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>> If you look at the figures on this page, you will find, in 2007, in
>>> America:
>>>
>>> 1) The top 1% have 42.7 of the financial wealth.
>>>
>>> 2) The next 19% have 50.3% of the wealth.
>>>
>>> 3) The bottom 80% have 7.0% of the wealth.
>>>
>>> So, according to those figures, the top 20% of the population have 42.7
>>> + 50.3 = 93% of the financial wealth.
>>>
>>> This situation has worsened since 2007 ...
>>>
>>> I'd say we tax those top 20% of the population, what say all of you?
>>
>> You're an idiot. That's what we all say.
>
>
> No, but you are one confused moron!
>
> It is the University of California at Santa Cruz who you are calling
> idiots.
Your point, you retard?
> Again, you confuse the messenger with the message!
No, we know yer a retard.
RHF
> On 5/21/2011 4:42 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> If you look at the figures on this page, you will find, in 2007, in America:
>
> >> 1) The top 1% have 42.7 of the financial wealth.
>
> >> 2) The next 19% have 50.3% of the wealth.
>
> >> 3) The bottom 80% have 7.0% of the wealth.
>
> >> So, according to those figures, the top 20% of the population have 42.7
> >> + 50.3 = 93% of the financial wealth.
>
> >> This situation has worsened since 2007 ...
>
> >> I'd say we tax those top 20% of the population, what say all of you?
> > You're an idiot. That's what we all say.
>
> No, but you are one confused moron!
>
- It is the University of California at Santa Cruz
- who you are calling idiots.
Well Now... any Institution of Higher Learning
with 'Slug' {For Brains} as their Mascot is a
http://www.kohoso.us/images/ucsc.png
place that 'I' am not Banana's about. ~ RHF
http://www.ucsc.edu/about/mascot.html
-wrt- Sammy the Slug
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Santa_Cruz#Mascot
John Smith
> ...
> - It is the University of California at Santa Cruz
> - who you are calling idiots.
>
> Well Now... any Institution of Higher Learning
> with 'Slug' {For Brains} as their Mascot is a
> http://www.kohoso.us/images/ucsc.png
> place that 'I' am not Banana's about. ~ RHF
> http://www.ucsc.edu/about/mascot.html
> -wrt- Sammy the Slug
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Santa_Cruz#Mascot
Since the figures are actually a summary of the federal reserve and
govt. figures, the ultimate message comes from them ... you will notice,
no one is able to come up with figures which dispute them -- that often
happens with the truth ...
Regards,
JS
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On 5/21/2011 4:42 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> John Smith<bit_b...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>> If you look at the figures on this page, you will find, in 2007, in America:
>>>
>>> 1) The top 1% have 42.7 of the financial wealth.
>>>
>>> 2) The next 19% have 50.3% of the wealth.
>>>
>>> 3) The bottom 80% have 7.0% of the wealth.
>>>
>>> So, according to those figures, the top 20% of the population have 42.7
>>> + 50.3 = 93% of the financial wealth.
>>>
>>> This situation has worsened since 2007 ...
>>>
>>> I'd say we tax those top 20% of the population, what say all of you?
>> You're an idiot. That's what we all say.
>
>No
Yeah. I though you filtered me? Did you require another bitch slapping
to get through your weekend?
Klaus Schadenfreude
>On May 22, 10:20 am, John Smith <bit_buc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/21/2011 4:42 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> John Smith<bit_buc...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >> If you look at the figures on this page, you will find, in 2007, in America:
>>
>> >> 1) The top 1% have 42.7 of the financial wealth.
>>
>> >> 2) The next 19% have 50.3% of the wealth.
>>
>> >> 3) The bottom 80% have 7.0% of the wealth.
>>
>> >> So, according to those figures, the top 20% of the population have 42.7
>> >> + 50.3 = 93% of the financial wealth.
>>
>> >> This situation has worsened since 2007 ...
>>
>> >> I'd say we tax those top 20% of the population, what say all of you?
>> > You're an idiot. That's what we all say.
>>
>> No, but you are one confused moron!
>>
>
>- It is the University of California at Santa Cruz
>- who you are calling idiots.
No, I'm calling Smith a moron, for implying that only the top 20%
should pay taxes.
John Smith
>> ...
However, you might wish to digest some data from a couple of smart guys
at Harvard Business School and Duke University:
http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton%20ariely%20in%20press.pdf
Again, truth, is truth, is the same truth ... however, the great debate
by debunkers goes on in the argument of "Kill the Damn Messenger!"
ROFLOL
Regards,
JS
John Smith
I believe your text says everything necessary. ROFLOL!!!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
ROFLOL
But a good example of the real problem you face -- your delusions.
Regards,
JS
RD Sandman
email.me:
Particularly when you post both sides.......you didn't.
--
Sleep well tonight....RD (The Sandman)
If you woke up this morning....
Don't complain.
John Smith
Whoever make the money pays the bill ... no-brainer ... this financial
crisis is just working out those terms.
Regards,
JS
RD Sandman
email.me:
However, you wish to tax the wealthy even more even when the stats show
that they pay about where they should be when looking at the amount of
wealth or income that they show.
gfn
What I say is interesting, and very slanted, one sided article. I
particularly like how they avoid who is actually footing the federal
income tax bill in this country and focus primarily on the percentage
of ones income that they pay in taxes. They also avoid who primarily
benefits from all this income that is coming in. Paints two different
pictures. But, fear not, I'm here to help.
Top 1% paid 38.02% of the bill
Top 5% paid 58.72% of the bill
Top 10% paid 69.94% of the bill
Top 25% paid 86.34% of the bill
Top 50% paid 97.30% of the bill
Bottom 50% paid 2.7% of the bill
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Now, before you complain about who has the wealth consider that the US
does not, but for limited circumstances, derive their revenue based on
wealth. It's based on income. So, let's compare apples to apples
until the law changes to tax based on wealth.
RD Sandman
@s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
He has been posted those figures for both 2007 and 2008, but so
far......silence on that issue.
Sid9
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
news:Xns9EEE7F23D...@216.196.121.131...
rate then people whose income is report on a W-2.
Up to 33% if you work at a job.....10% on dividends......for not working.
The more your make from NOT WORKING, the more likely your tax rate will
approach 17.7% asymptotically.
Sid9
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
Those number becloud the issue.
They do not state the effective tax rate for these taxpayers.
They are a misuse of statistics.
They are deceptive and misleading.
A favorite Republican tactic to protect their donors.
You are fool if you buy into this bullshit
RD Sandman
So what? The top 1% owns about 42% of the wealth, has about about 35% of
the total net worth and pays about 40% of the income tax. Those numbers
are pretty much in line.
Meanwhile the bottom 80% owns about 7% of the wealth, about 15% of the
net worth and pays 11% of the income taxes. In fact the bottom 50% only
pays 2.7% of those income taxes.
Again, pretty much in line.
> The more your make from NOT WORKING, the more likely your tax rate
> will approach 17.7% asymptotically.
IOW, you are saying that the MORE money you make, the MORE money you
should owe the government and the LESS money you earn, the MORE money the
government owes you?
RD Sandman
Who cares what the effective tax rate is? The bottom line is that most
of the tax burden is carried by the wealthy and the bottom 50% pay less
than 3% of them.
> They are a misuse of statistics.
As is only presenting one side.
> They are deceptive and misleading.
As is only presenting one side.
> A favorite Republican tactic to protect their donors.
>
> You are fool if you buy into this bullshit
And you are a moron if you don't look at both sides of the equation.
Sid9
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
.
"IOW" are your words.
Don’t put words in my mouth.
America's wealthy are under taxed.
Are workers are overtaxed.
The Republican con job continues
Sid9
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
The "effective" tax rate is the only rate that counts.
The "marginal" tax rate does not tell the story.
It's simply Republican liars using statistics to promote a lie
RD Sandman
Did you see that curly thing at the end? (There's another one) It means
that it was a question. How is that putting words in your mouth? all
you need to do is answer it....the words you use will be your own.
> America's wealthy are under taxed.
> Are workers are overtaxed.
So far, you haven't shown that. I have shown data, you have simply run
your mouth and accused me of trying to put words in there for you to say.
;)
RD Sandman
No, it isn't. What counts is the amount of money. That is what gives
the government the ability to fund the entitlements you so desparately
want.
> The "marginal" tax rate does not tell the story.
What marginal tax rates are those? The monies I showed and the
percentages of who pays what is based on AGI.
Sid9
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
The amount of money doesn’t count.
The EFFECTIVE tax rate counts.
If you take $1,000 extra from a working stiff he may lose his home.
If you take $1,000 extra from a wealthy person it's small change and has no
effect on that person.
It's the EFFECTIVE tax that matters...not the marginal rate
Scout
"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ireenp$oen$1...@dont-email.me...
Excuse me, but what exactly do you mean by "effective tax rate"?
Is that some sort of realspeech for "we need to tax them for an even larger
share than what they have to pay now?"
Scout
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
news:Xns9EEE9388C...@216.196.121.131...
Also known as "Steal from the rich to give to the poor".
Scout
"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:irek4g$uva$1...@dont-email.me...
Nice assertion, but RD's number disprove that assertion.
So, do you have any counter evidence?
Scout
"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:ireeto$plf$1...@dont-email.me...
IOW, don't try to confuse you with facts?
> They do not state the effective tax rate for these taxpayers.
By effective, you mean paying more than they should?
> They are a misuse of statistics.
So where is your counter evidence?
> They are deceptive and misleading.
Proof?
> A favorite Republican tactic to protect their donors.
Facts do tend to come from Republicans, in my experience, while Democrats
simply make assertions without any support.
> You are fool if you buy into this bullshit
Yours?
Scout
"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:irek77$vdf$1...@dont-email.me...
Please define the "effective tax rate" and indicate for us exactly why only
it should count and that under it the rich don't pay enough.
Dave LaRue
America's wealthy are under taxed.
> Are workers are overtaxed.
^^^
Did you mean "Our", you retard?
How would YOU know, you unemployable retard?
You can't afford gas, let alone the final payments on your Yugo, you retard.
Get a job, AFTER you get an education, you retard!
Dave LaRue
Explain why many Democrats are rich and pushed for the bills you said
hate, you retard.
RD Sandman
Nope.
> If you take $1,000 extra from a working stiff he may lose his home.
> If you take $1,000 extra from a wealthy person it's small change and
> has no effect on that person.
Excuse me, but those are money amounts. No wonder you have problems
understanding other folks.
> It's the EFFECTIVE tax that matters...not the marginal rate
The effective tax and the amount of money they derived is where those
numbers came from. You DO understand how those numbers were developed,
don't you?
RD Sandman
news:iren7l$jpo$1...@dont-email.me:
I don't think he has any idea, but it 'sounds good'.
> Is that some sort of realspeech for "we need to tax them for an even
> larger share than what they have to pay now?"
--
Dave LaRue
Never happened.
After all, they are WORKING, unlike you, you retard!
> If you take $1,000 extra from a wealthy person it's small change and has
> no effect on that person.
All you idiot retards want is more money from others.
What is keeping you from getting and keeping a job, you retard?
If I were you, and I'm glad I am not, I would buy a gun.
>
> It's the EFFECTIVE tax that matters...not the marginal rate
Then double dog tax the snot out of the democrats that are making
millions off of you, by raising YOUR taxes, you retard.
RD Sandman
news:iren9m$k2o$1...@dont-email.me:
In the poplular idiom of the day.......income redistribution.
Scout
"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:iremsf$hkn$1...@dont-email.me...
What if you take $100,000 from that wealthy person?
Because, if the wealthy person would only paying $1,000 in income taxes,
then he's making no more than the working stiff.
> It's the EFFECTIVE tax that matters...not the marginal rate
Then we are agreed, the wealthy pay a higher effective tax rate since their
income is taxed at a higher effective rate.
Scout
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
news:Xns9EEEA307...@216.196.121.131...
Well, I'm certainly willing to allow DuDu to distribute any part of his
income to me that he chooses to part with.
RD Sandman
$bhk$1...@dont-email.me:
Hell, I don't need it, I would just like him to send it in. Whatever
amount he feels he can afford and mark it for some budget item he likes.
I just want him to keep his hand out of my pocket before he takes any
money out of his.
John Smith
Is there a summary of the taxes which they are using in that figure,
somewhere?
For example, are these figures only dealing with income tax?
Do they take into consideration fees, licenses, fines, federal excise
taxes, state sales taxes, fuel taxes, property taxes, etc., etc.
No, 1% of the people in the highest income taxes are NOT paying their
fair share ... and, all those other figures are just as skewed ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> Those number becloud the issue.
> They do not state the effective tax rate for these taxpayers.
>
> They are a misuse of statistics.
>
> They are deceptive and misleading.
>
> A favorite Republican tactic to protect their donors.
>
> You are fool if you buy into this bullshit
I'd imagine the website is a front for neocons, the rich/elite, etc.
You notice he/she offers NO .gov or .edu sites ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> What I say is interesting, and very slanted, one sided article. I
> particularly like how they avoid who is actually footing the federal
> income tax bill in this country and focus primarily on the percentage
> of ones income that they pay in taxes. They also avoid who primarily
> benefits from all this income that is coming in. Paints two different
> pictures. But, fear not, I'm here to help.
>
> Top 1% paid 38.02% of the bill
> Top 5% paid 58.72% of the bill
> Top 10% paid 69.94% of the bill
> Top 25% paid 86.34% of the bill
> Top 50% paid 97.30% of the bill
> Bottom 50% paid 2.7% of the bill
> http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
>
> Now, before you complain about who has the wealth consider that the US
> does not, but for limited circumstances, derive their revenue based on
> wealth. It's based on income. So, let's compare apples to apples
> until the law changes to tax based on wealth.
Bascially the NTPUF is nothing more than criminals offering
disinformation, obfuscation and down right lies cloaked in sheeps
clothing ...:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Taxpayers_Union
Regards,
JS
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:irf8ik$vlr$2...@dont-email.me...
It would seem to me that it would be up to those claiming that 1% isn't
playing "their fair share" to prove it.
So I suggest that if you wish to prove they aren't paying their fair share
that you do so, otherwise it would seem that adequate evidence has been
presented to suggest they are.
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:irf8m5$vlr$3...@dont-email.me...
I note that neither you nor Sid offer ANY evidence at all much less from a
.gov or .edu site.
So Sid makes an accusation that they are somehow not paying their fair
share.
Even though it's not required RD presents evidence that suggests they are.
Where is Sid's evidence?
Where is Sid, or you, presenting evidence to refute what was presented to
show they are paying their fair share?
Seems to me, it is those who are accusing some individual or group of wrong
doing to prove their case.
So when are you going to hold Sid to present some sort of evidence much less
the .gov or .edu requirement you demand of others?
Double standard?
Looks like it to me.
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
> It would seem to me that it would be up to those claiming that 1% isn't
> playing "their fair share" to prove it.
Precisely who do you think built this Beast? and who is piloting it?
John Smith
> ...
> It would seem to me that it would be up to those claiming that 1%
> isn't playing "their fair share" to prove it.
>
> So I suggest that if you wish to prove they aren't paying their fair
> share that you do so, otherwise it would seem that adequate evidence
> has been presented to suggest they are.
Pay attention, I did. And, the "evidence" offered to dispute it is
worthless!
But, show us what you got, if anything more than just personal attack,
opinion and BS ...
Regards,
JS
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:irf8v4$vlr$4...@dont-email.me...
Then you can show us it is disinformation, obfuscation and down right lies
by posting the actual facts along with complete cites, of course.
Otherwise, looks to me as if you are simply trying to attach the messenger.
Scout
"MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" <ExPre...@au.revoir.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9EEED28F6FE91Ex...@69.16.185.247...
Irrelevent and has nothing to do with the issue or the point made.
However, who built is was government, and who is piloting it is a
combination of both Democrats and Republicans.
You don't like it, then maybe you need to do something about all the
spending taking place on BOTH sides.
Scout
"John Smith" <bit_b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:irfa8q$g71$3...@dont-email.me...
> On 5/23/2011 8:34 PM, Scout wrote:
>> ...
>> It would seem to me that it would be up to those claiming that 1% isn't
>> playing "their fair share" to prove it.
>>
>> So I suggest that if you wish to prove they aren't paying their fair
>> share that you do so, otherwise it would seem that adequate evidence has
>> been presented to suggest they are.
>
> Pay attention, I did. And, the "evidence" offered to dispute it is
> worthless!
So you claim, but I'm still waiting for you, or Sid, to present ANY evidence
to support their evidence is worthless, much less ANY evidence to support
the claim that they aren't paying their fair share.
Seems to me the only evidence presented refutes the claims and all you can
do is case accusations within no support of your own to disprove that
evidence.
> But, show us what you got, if anything more than just personal attack,
> opinion and BS ...
Exactly, SHOW me they aren't paying their fair share. Come on, "show us what
you got, if anything more than just personal attack, opinion and BS....".
So where is YOUR evidence?
Scout
<Yoor...@Jurgis.net> wrote in message
news:o6amt6p5mutpqh2a4...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 May 2011 16:32:15 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>Who cares what the effective tax rate is? The bottom line is that most
>>of the tax burden is carried by the wealthy and the bottom 50% pay less
>>than 3% of them.
>
> It makes a different when the top 3% own all the wealth and their
> "burden" isn't a burden to them related to their accumulated wealth
> and compensation.
That's your opinion. Further, we don't tax wealth, unless you count property
tax, and I believe they pay that as well.
So, it seems your complaint has nothing to do with what's fair but rather
the "burden".
> They do not sacfifice anything in the pursuit of
> wealth, many do not work, produce nothing.
Actually they do, since any pursuit of wealth includes a risk of loss.
> They influence the status of the laws and institutions to a greater
> degree that alters what they get and what they have to pay.
Well, since they pay more then by your own reasoning they should have more
services provided to them.
> It's a question of social justice, fairness, and policy that
> recognizes some degree of the historical underpinnings of revolution
> throughout history when wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer
> hands.
By social justice you mean they have what you want, and you want to come up
with an excuse to take it away from them so you can have it?
Howard Brazee
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>It would seem to me that it would be up to those claiming that 1% isn't
>playing "their fair share" to prove it.
In most areas of life, paying a fair share is relative to what one
gets. For instance, it costs more to buy private security for a
mansion than for a hovel.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
gfn
Yeah. It's called the IRS. IRS.gov to be specific.
> For example, are these figures only dealing with income tax?
Yes. That's how the government is primarily funded.
>
> Do they take into consideration fees, licenses, fines, federal excise
> taxes, state sales taxes, fuel taxes, property taxes, etc., etc.
>
No. But, do you think the wealthy don't pay fees, licenses, fines,
excise taxes, state sales taxes, fuel taxes, property taxes, etc.?
> No, 1% of the people in the highest income taxes are NOT paying their
> fair share ... and, all those other figures are just as skewed ...
>
Sure they are. The numbers don't lie. You can not deny that the top
1% pay over 38% of all federal income taxes. That is not disputable.
It is a fact. What I see your side doing is avoiding the question of
who is footing the bill and prefer to frame the question as how much
of one's income is someone paying in taxes. Two different questions
with two very different results. My point is when it comes to funding
government it is indisputable who is doing just that. Nothing you say
can change that.
> Regards,
> JS
John Smith
>> ...
I am saying the obvious, 1% of the people making a huge percentage of
all the financial wealth and frequently pay no or low taxes contribute
little ...
We do not need innuendo, opinions or BS. We need exact figures on their
contributions to the whole of all taxes paid. I think that 1% is not
paying their fair share as determined by the amount of money they make.
I think the reason that the figure are so hidden on all this data is
obvious -- they know they are not paying their fair share, and that is
reasons for websites such as this one:
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
These are the rich crooks attempting to manipulate public opinion ...
and yes, the financial wealth needs spread out better than the 20/80
percent cut which is happening!
Regards,
JS
gfn
> On 5/24/2011 7:47 AM, gfn wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> I am saying the obvious, 1% of the people making a huge percentage of
> all the financial wealth and frequently pay no or low taxes contribute
> little ...
>
What part of the top 1% pay 38% of the federal income tax bill isn't
registering with you? Your statement that they pay little or
contribute little is simply not true. The IRS numbers bear that out.
Put your wealth envy aside and try to be just a little objective about
this.
> We do not need innuendo, opinions or BS. We need exact figures on their
> contributions to the whole of all taxes paid. I think that 1% is not
> paying their fair share as determined by the amount of money they make.
Fine, you just backed up my claim in my last post on re-framing the
question as to who pays the bill as opposed to who pays what of their
income.
> I think the reason that the figure are so hidden on all this data is
> obvious -- they know they are not paying their fair share, and that is
> reasons for websites such as this one:
>
Again, the numbers don't lie. I can't fathom how someone can say that
where 1% foots 38% of the bill that they aren't paying their fair
share. I'm not going to change your mind on that point so there
really is no use in trying to convince you otherwise other than to say
you're just flat out wrong.
> http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
>
> These are the rich crooks attempting to manipulate public opinion ...
> and yes, the financial wealth needs spread out better than the 20/80
> percent cut which is happening!
>
Crooks? Your wealth envy has clouded your judgment and objectivity.
> Regards,
> JS
John Smith
So, let me cut to the chase here, since 1% of the people make 42.7
percent of the financial wealth, they should pay for 42.7 percent of the
cost of the roads, the public utilities, the parks, the state budget,
the federal budget, etc.
And, since 50.3 percent of the people get half of the financial wealth,
they should be paying over half the costs of all these government
costs. And, they should be damn anxious to pay them, after all, that is
the system which is allowing their financial wealth.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>> ...
Where are some credible souces to back up any of that innuendo you keep
attempting to push?
Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying 42% of all of
governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not paying half
of governments costs, until that happens they are NOT paying their fair
share ... a flat tax can fix that ...
Regards,
JS
gfn
I already said the tax data is at irs.gov
Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. The one I advocate is
the FairTax.
John Smith
Let me put this more bluntly. If I buy and item and pay 7% sales tax,
the top one percent should buy an item and pay a 42.7% sales tax, that
way they will be contributing their fair share to run government ...
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Regards,
JS
John Smith
First of all, the data on that site is not effective in being able to
reach any proper conclusions ... it has been conveniently arranged that way.
Even a professional accountant would need a great amount of time to be
able to apply the data effectively, and then only with the data from
other sources ...
Regards,
JS
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
>> ...
>>> It would seem to me that it would be up to those claiming that 1%
>>> isn't playing "their fair share" to prove it.
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> Precisely who do you think built this Beast? and who is piloting it?
>>
>> http://www.libertylive.org/Uploads/The%20Debt%20Star.jpg
>
> Irrelevent and has nothing to do with the issue or the point made.
>
> However, who built is was government, and who is piloting it is a
> combination of both Democrats and Republicans.
>
> You don't like it, then maybe you need to do something about all the
> spending taking place on BOTH sides.
'Splain me pleeze.
Precisely, how do you prove a negative? A: You can't.
And isn't that the tactic being used by
the forces of Mediocrity and Sameness that
have pushed the state-of-things to its point of maximum instability?
To where we are today, the metaphorical DEBTSTAR?
Q: Who's piloting the DEBTSTAR.
A: YOU ARE!
You want to balance the budget?
You want to ensure fair working wages?
Reduce pay of Congressmen and Executive branch to minimum wage.
Eliminate the rotating-door of Gov't Manager->lobbyist->Corp Board officer.
Problem#1 is that those who lead are FACTUALLY not worth their wages.
Problem#2 is that the constituency FAILS to realize the nead
for a leader to follow is nought but a weakness to overcome.
Problem#3 is the LIB media who gives airtime to Strategic Morons like
Evo Morales, Clinton and Al Gore who accord 'Rights'
to terrorists, trees, rocks and even fungus while
ignoring the fact that the World is on FIRE while
they're dancin'w/gasoline.
I know,
the answer MUST BE
to send another $5 to Hillary
to help her pay off her campaign debt!!!
LIBs. What Price their Vision?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/bedford_hill_bill_BrCbhHcYNSeSdBQPGQEWcL
Clintons dealing for $11M Westchester mansion
"Keep in mind that every dollar we waste today puts a life at risk"
-- Bill Clinton'10 barely containing a Chuckle
The TRUELY EVIL are abetted by the Venal and the WEAK.
---
DEMAND COMPETANCE.
DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY.
DEFEAT LIB STRATEGIC INSANITY. IT REALLY IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
RD Sandman
email.me:
> On 5/24/2011 7:47 AM, gfn wrote:
>
> >> ...
>
> I am saying the obvious, 1% of the people making a huge percentage of
> all the financial wealth and frequently pay no or low taxes contribute
> little ...
>
> We do not need innuendo, opinions or BS.
Then why did you just post a comment with no cite?
We need exact figures on their
> contributions to the whole of all taxes paid. I think that 1% is not
> paying their fair share as determined by the amount of money they make.
Then provide cites to prove it.
> I think the reason that the figure are so hidden on all this data is
> obvious -- they know they are not paying their fair share, and that is
> reasons for websites such as this one:
>
> http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
>
> These are the rich crooks attempting to manipulate public opinion ...
> and yes, the financial wealth needs spread out better than the 20/80
> percent cut which is happening!
Then you should have no problem showing a cite for your claim.
Otherwise, we may have to think you simply pulled it out of your ass.
RD Sandman
email.me:
Oh, you mean one like this?
A tax on *ALL* income no matter where derived. One deduction. Federal
poverty level for a family of four and everybody gets that deduction.
Have a tax rate of, say 15% and the current poverty level at $24K and we
get the following:
A person who earns up to $24K, pays nada...
A person who earns $50K, pays $3,900 (50-24x15%)
A person who earns $100K, pays $11,400 (100-24x15%)
A person who earns $500K, pays $71,400 (500-24x15%)
A person who earns a million pays $146,400 (1000-24x15%)
That do it for you?
RD Sandman
@w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax.
RD Sandman
And how do you know that at the time of purchase?
RD Sandman
email.me:
> On 5/24/2011 7:47 AM, gfn wrote:
>
> So, let me cut to the chase here, since 1% of the people make 42.7
> percent of the financial wealth, they should pay for 42.7 percent of
the
> cost of the roads, the public utilities, the parks, the state budget,
> the federal budget, etc.
They do. Those roads, public utilities, parks, state budgets, federal
budgets are paid mostly by income taxes, excise taxes, use taxes,
gasoline taxes and some special use taxes. Are you under the impression
that wealthy folks don't have to pay those?
> And, since 50.3 percent of the people get half of the financial wealth,
> they should be paying over half the costs of all these government
> costs. And, they should be damn anxious to pay them, after all, that
is
> the system which is allowing their financial wealth.
Hmmmm, you do realize, one hopes, that their financial wealth is one of
the things that provides for worker bees....like employment, pay,
benefits, etc..
Sid9
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
news:Xns9EEF6998...@216.196.121.131...
.
If you add a $1,000 tax to the $50,000 guy he becomes homeless
If you add a $1,000 tax to the $1,000,000 guy...he never notices it.
That's what's UNFAIR.
The EFFECT on the wealthy taxpayer is nil.
The EFFECT on the low income tax payer is catastrophic.
RD Sandman
email.me:
> On 5/23/2011 12:49 PM, gfn wrote:
>> ...
>> What I say is interesting, and very slanted, one sided article. I
>> particularly like how they avoid who is actually footing the federal
>> income tax bill in this country and focus primarily on the percentage
>> of ones income that they pay in taxes. They also avoid who primarily
>> benefits from all this income that is coming in. Paints two different
>> pictures. But, fear not, I'm here to help.
>>
>> Top 1% paid 38.02% of the bill
>> Top 5% paid 58.72% of the bill
>> Top 10% paid 69.94% of the bill
>> Top 25% paid 86.34% of the bill
>> Top 50% paid 97.30% of the bill
>> Bottom 50% paid 2.7% of the bill
>> http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
>>
>> Now, before you complain about who has the wealth consider that the US
>> does not, but for limited circumstances, derive their revenue based on
>> wealth. It's based on income. So, let's compare apples to apples
>> until the law changes to tax based on wealth.
>
> Bascially the NTPUF is nothing more than criminals offering
> disinformation, obfuscation and down right lies cloaked in sheeps
> clothing ...:
>
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Taxpayers_Union
Nothing in that site you gave that matches your claim. Are you always
this vacuous?
dxAce
Sid9 wrote:
You'd not know catastrophic even if it crawled up your ass and spent a long
cold winter, 'tard boy.
gfn
Impossible to implement.
> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
>
> Regards,
> JS
gfn
> On 5/24/2011 9:02 AM, gfn wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 11:24 am, John Smith<bit_buc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2011 8:20 AM, gfn wrote:
>
> >> >> ...
>
> >> Where are some credible souces to back up any of that innuendo you keep
> >> attempting to push?
>
> >> Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying 42% of all of
> >> governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not paying half
> >> of governments costs, until that happens they are NOT paying their fair
> >> share ... a flat tax can fix that ...
>
> >> Regards,
> >> JS
> > I already said the tax data is at irs.gov
>
> > Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. The one I advocate is
> > the FairTax.
>
> First of all, the data on that site is not effective in being able to
> reach any proper conclusions ... it has been conveniently arranged that way.
>
Sure it is. It gives a clear, concise and true picture of who pays
the federal income tax burden in this country. If you want to talk
about all taxes and all revenue that goes to the government then your
right. I know of no place that compiles that data.
gfn
> gfn <gfn...@gmail.com> wrote in news:75946acf-fb50-4a71-9677-e0b1afec14b0
> @w19g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 11:24 am, John Smith <bit_buc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/24/2011 8:20 AM, gfn wrote:
>
> >> >> ...
>
> >> Where are some credible souces to back up any of that innuendo you
> keep
> >> attempting to push?
>
> >> Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying 42% of all
> of
> >> governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not paying half
> >> of governments costs, until that happens they are NOT paying their
> fair
> >> share ... a flat tax can fix that ...
>
> >> Regards,
> >> JS
>
> > I already said the tax data is at irs.gov
>
> > Now, as for a flat tax I agree with you 100%. The one I advocate is
> > the FairTax.
>
> That is not a flat tax, it is a sales tax.
>
It's a sales tax but it is flat. It's a flat 23%.
John Smith
You set up a system which handles it ... where they pay their fair share
of the cost of government.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> Impossible to implement.
>
>> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
>>
>> Regards,
>> JS
Yeah, a lot of things are "impossible", up until someone does it ...
Regards,
JS
Gray Ghost
> On 5/24/2011 9:02 AM, gfn wrote:
First, we kill all the Marxists.
--
Herman Cain for President! http://hermancain.com/
If you don't support him you are a Racist!!
He beat Cancer. He'll beat Obama (who is just like cancer)
Remember Desert One, Carter 0? Ain't it sad to wish that Obama had as much
ambition but being glad he doesn't knowing he doesn't have THAT much
competence?
John Smith
> ...
> the federal income tax burden in this country. If you want to talk
> about all taxes and all revenue that goes to the government then your
> right. I know of no place that compiles that data.
OK. Then, please cut and paste the relevant parts here, I need them
pointed out to me.
Thanks in advance,
JS
gfn
Besides the inherent unfairness of such a system what would you
suggest for implementation? I can see it now:
Customer: Good day, one cup of coffee please.
Waiter: Sure...first a copy of your 1040 please.
> Regards,
> JS
RD Sandman
Nope, what's unfair is YOU expecting OTHERS to pay for what YOU want.
> The EFFECT on the wealthy taxpayer is nil.
> The EFFECT on the low income tax payer is catastrophic.
Interestingly, no one is asking that $50K guy for that extra grand, but
here you are whining that the million dollar guy won't as affected.
The problem Democrats will have is that sometime they will run out of
other people's money.
RD Sandman
news:5111f00d-80ed-4513...@x3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
You had better spend some time learning what a flat tax is.
RD Sandman
email.me:
IOW, when buying a pack of gum at a Stop-N-Rob, you have to go through a
check on your income so they know how much tax to charge?
C'mon, even you can't be that stupid.
RD Sandman
RD Sandman
Let's put it another way.......the cost of a system to do that would be a
magnitude more cost than any resultant tax received. You don't think
things through very far, do you. Typical Democrat, if we can find a way to
stick it to some wealthy guy, we don't give a damn what it costs.
RD Sandman
If you can't understand the date presented at that site, you have no hope
of understanding any data presented to you. Which explains some of your
ideas.....
gfn
I'm perfectly familiar with a flat tax. The FairTax is a replacement
for the income tax. It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator.
Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner.
gfn
I did that yesterday in my very first post to you.
> Thanks in advance,
> JS
John Smith
> John Smith<bit_b...@gmail.com> wrote in news:irgsdu$b0g$2@dont-
The flat tax, the flat tax, I thought you would be able to catch on ...
I was wrong.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> John Smith<bit_b...@gmail.com> wrote in news:irgshf$b0g$3...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 5/24/2011 10:45 AM, gfn wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Impossible to implement.
>>>
>>>> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> JS
>> Yeah, a lot of things are "impossible", up until someone does it ...
> Let's put it another way.......the cost of a system to do that would be a
> magnitude more cost than any resultant tax received. You don't think
> things through very far, do you. Typical Democrat, if we can find a way to
> stick it to some wealthy guy, we don't give a damn what it costs.
>
>
Flat tax ... with exemptions for those who can't afford housing, food,
medical, etc.
I doubt anyone is going to throw away a good job, paying a decent wage,
with excellent benefits to go on welfare ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> John Smith<bit_b...@gmail.com> wrote in news:irgsml$l7$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 5/24/2011 10:47 AM, gfn wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Sure it is. It gives a clear, concise and true picture of who pays
>>> the federal income tax burden in this country. If you want to talk
>>> about all taxes and all revenue that goes to the government then your
>>> right. I know of no place that compiles that data.
>>> ...
>> OK. Then, please cut and paste the relevant parts here, I need them
>> pointed out to me.
> If you can't understand the date presented at that site, you have no hope
> of understanding any data presented to you. Which explains some of your
> ideas.....
If it is so simple, as you pretend, it would be no problem ... you are
attempting a circular argument ...
Just post something which proves your point ... if you can, from the
site you are claiming explains it openly ... DUH!
Well, unless you are lying and have been caught in that lie.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
I don't see any data posted, but then, I didn't expect to see any ... we
both knew that.
Regards,
JS
gfn
You don't see data posted? What part aren't you grasping? From line
1, page 1:
Percentiles Ranked by AGI: Top 1%
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid: 38.02
John, this isn't rocket science.
RD Sandman
news:fafaebf4-7788-4906...@s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
> On May 24, 2:34 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>> gfn <gfn...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:5111f00d-80ed-4513-9bae-c9a63b5cdb40@
Not sure about that since it has nothing to do with sales.
The FairTax is a replacement
> for the income tax.
Yes....and a flat tax is another method of figuring income tax.
It uses a flat 23% as the revenue generator.
> Call it what you will, the FairTax is a winner.
You may think so. I don't. I think it needs too many adjustments so
that it does not become regressive.
RD Sandman
email.me:
A flat tax is on income. It replaces the current method of calculating
income tax by applying the same tax rate to all income not just wages and
salaries. I gave an example of it here in this thread. Did you take the
time to read it? It is really quite simply and quite short so you should
have no problem understanding it. ;)
What you proposed above is a sales tax and it sure as hell isn't flat. A
flat sales tax would be the same percentage on whatever was purchased and
no matter who purchased it.
You need to learn a bit more before you venture out into the real world.
John Smith
Yeah, I can tell, you missed the whole point of the discussion, went
full circle and are back on the limited range of tax -- income tax.
This ignores all other taxes including fines, fees, licenses, property
tax, sales taxes, excise taxes, fuel taxes, cell phone taxes,
electricity/water/sewer taxes, etc., etc., etc.
Regards,
JS
RD Sandman
> On 5/24/2011 11:38 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> John Smith<bit_b...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:irgshf$b0g$3...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> On 5/24/2011 10:45 AM, gfn wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Impossible to implement.
>>>>
>>>>> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> JS
>>> Yeah, a lot of things are "impossible", up until someone does it ...
>> Let's put it another way.......the cost of a system to do that would
>> be a magnitude more cost than any resultant tax received. You don't
>> think things through very far, do you. Typical Democrat, if we can
>> find a way to stick it to some wealthy guy, we don't give a damn what
>> it costs.
>>
>>
>
> Flat tax ... with exemptions for those who can't afford housing, food,
> medical, etc.
Then it isn't a flat tax. It would be a sales tax and one would have to
prove exemptions or income with every purchase.
> I doubt anyone is going to throw away a good job, paying a decent
> wage, with excellent benefits to go on welfare ...
--
RD Sandman
email.me:
Here is how a flat tax on income would work....
You said:
> Truth is, sure looks like the wealthiest 1% are not paying 42% of all
of
> governments costs, and sure looks like the top 19% are not paying half
> of governments costs, until that happens they are NOT paying their fair
> share ... a flat tax can fix that ...
I replied:
Oh, you mean one like this?
A tax on *ALL* income no matter where derived. One deduction. Federal
poverty level for a family of four and everybody gets that deduction.
Have a tax rate of, say 15% and the current poverty level at $24K and we
get the following:
A person who earns up to $24K, pays nada...
A person who earns $50K, pays $3,900 (50-24x15%)
A person who earns $100K, pays $11,400 (100-24x15%)
A person who earns $500K, pays $71,400 (500-24x15%)
A person who earns a million pays $146,400 (1000-24x15%)
That do it for you?
Now that would be a flat tax on income. A flat tax on sales would be the
same tax percentage applied to all purchases. Income is not a part of it,
nor are deductions. So which flat tax are you arguing for? Income or
sales?
John Smith
I think the flat tax is great.
And, once implemented, all other taxes are dropped. These other taxes
being drivers licenses, contracting licences, cell phone fees/charges
(except for ACTUAL service charges) , property taxes, use taxes, excise
taxes, fuel taxes, all other sales taxes, etc., etc.
Or, simply, ONE TAX PERIOD!
Even the morons will then realize what they actually pay in taxes (which
is about 40% - 50% of their incomes, or more.)
Regards,
JS
Sid9
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
That's what is unfair.
A small increase of tax on a low earner is a huge burden
The same increase on a wealthy person is INSIGNIFICANT.
RD Sandman
I didn't make that claim, however, here is the data:
2008
Top 1% AGI >$380,354 Percentage 38.02
Top 5% AGI >$159,619 Percentage 58.72
Top 10% AGI >$113,799 Percentage 69.94
Top 25% AGI >$ 67,280 Percentage 86.34
Top 50% AGI >$ 33,048 Percentage 97.30
Bottom 50% AGI <$ 33,048 Percentage 2.70
2007
Top 1% AGI >$410,096 Percentage 40.42
Top 5% AGI >$160,041 Percentage 60.63
Top 10% AGI >$113,018 Percentage 71.22
Top 25% AGI >$ 66,532 Percentage 86.59
Top 50% AGI >$ 32,879 Percentage 97.11
Bottom 50% AGI <$ 32,879 Percentage 2.89
Here is the site:
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
John Smith
> © May 15, 2011
> By Don Tabor
>
> Who really pays the baker's taxes? The baker may write the check, but
> he does not bear the cost, and in that paradox lies the cause of much
> of the bitter partisanship and polarization that poisons our political
> process. But to understand that problem, we must consider how taxes
> are applied to the production of goods and services.
>
> So, how does the loaf of bread the baker sells come to market?
>
> A farmer grew and harvested wheat for sale to the miller to be made
> into flour for the baker. The farmer paid income taxes based on his
> profit from the sale and property tax on his farm and equipment. Those
> taxes were, from his point of view, just another cost of doing
> business in the course of earning his living, no different from fuel
> for his tractor or wages and taxes for employees.
>
> Since every other farmer had roughly the same expenses and taxes, the
> price they charge the miller must cover their expenses and taxes, plus
> their after-tax disposable income and savings. Otherwise, there would
> be no point in growing wheat. All of these costs and taxes were passed
> on to the miller, embedded in the price of wheat.
>
> Likewise, when the miller sold the flour ground from the wheat to the
> baker, his taxes, plus the income and Social Security taxes he
> withheld from his employees, plus the farmer's taxes, were all passed
> on to the baker.
>
> The baker then sold his bread made from the flour, carrying with it
> his own taxes plus those of his employees, plus all those previous
> taxes from the farmer, miller and their employees, hidden in the price
> of that loaf of bread. The buyer and his family ate the bread, and,
> having done so, could not sell it to anyone else and pass the taxes
> along, as the baker and everyone else before had done.
>
> So, it is the consumer who paid the baker's taxes, along with the
> farmer's taxes, the miller's taxes and the taxes they withheld from
> all of their employees. From bread to automobiles to brain surgery,
> the price of everything we buy carries in it the hidden taxes of
> everyone who contributed to the production of that product or service
> to the tune of, on average, 23 cents of every dollar we spend for
> federal taxes alone.
>
> Our complex, pervasive and expensive tax code is, in reality, a scheme
> to draft businesses and individuals as unpaid and unknowing tax
> collectors to gather a hidden sales tax and to keep voters from
> realizing who really bears the burden of those high taxes.
>
> There is no way around this central reality that all income and
> business taxes are a deception and that all taxes are eventually paid
> by the consumer, hidden in the price of goods and services. It doesn't
> matter what tax rate is applied to which tax bracket, or what
> deductions you receive. These devices change only the degree to which
> you are a tax collector, but the burden taxes place on your life
> depends solely on what you spend.
>
> Paying this hidden consumption tax is unavoidable, but the illusion of
> income-based taxing does a great deal of harm. First, it distorts our
> economic decisions. Goods and services that are provided by highly
> taxed individuals and companies, like health care, are artificially
> more expensive than necessary, while raw materials and natural
> resources are underpriced, leading to overconsumption and waste.
>
> But even worse, these hidden taxes distort the political process,
> encouraging government overspending by politicians who exploit the
> mistaken belief of many voters that government spending can be paid
> for solely by taxing corporations or the "rich." All of the
> exploitation of envy and demagoguery - which brings so much ill will
> to our politics and drives wedges between Americans who would be
> better served by mutual respect and compassion - is ultimately the
> meaningless exploitation of a lie.
>
> Our income tax system, with its escalating marginal rates, appears
> progressive, but the reality is extremely regressive. Currently, the
> lower income 45 percent of wage earners may pay no income tax
> directly, but in reality, with their FICA taxes added to the hidden
> embedded tax, their true federal tax burden is almost 30 percent of
> their meager income.
>
> Voters might well choose differently were they aware that government
> spending is ultimately paid for by everyone, through an invisible
> sales tax disguised as a high cost of living.
>
> Guest columnist Don Tabor of Chesapeake is a grandfather, Libertarian
> activist and proprietor of TidewaterLiberty.com. He is a dentist in
> Norfolk and Hampton.
A flat tax, and NO OTHER TAXES! PERIOD!
Regards,
JS