for all you liberal folks who want to tax the shit outta the rich and say that our current tax system is unfair well...it is unfair, but not for the reason im sure you are thinking. currently, the top 5 percent of income earners in this country pay between 51-52 percent of the TOTAL national income tax. the rich will continue to carry the burden under bush. he plans on making the rich carry over 54 percent total.

Bush would have to be pushing tax INCREASES to the rich. Do you have proof of this?

Not exactly. He's talking about percentages of the overall "tax burden" (God, that's a stupid phrase). If taxes were cut across the board, but more for the poor than for the rich (in some as-yet-undefined measure), then the percentage of "tax burden" carried by the rich would increase even if their taxes are actually being cut.

This is the kind of thinking that allows republicans to bullshit people even when they're clearly in the wrong.

paying them a nice salary...that's what we call middle class. Rich people are rich and stay rich, because the methods of generating wealth aren't taxed as much. They own stocks (capital gain tax rates <<< income tax rates). They own real estate (real estate tax rates <<<< income tax rates).

So you can can the "rich people are overburden with taxes" routine.

To be in the top 5% income wise just means you have a household income over $125k/yr and so in terms of sheer numbers, a lot of those people are just upper-managers at big companies and/or Executives, own privately held businesses, are consultants, Lawyers, Doctors, Accountants, etc.

Most of them aren't "Rich" ($1 Million in Liquid Assets) but having that kind of income will enable them to either become rich later in life and/or has them close to being rich now.

Most of the ways these people will become wealthy relates to being able to Invest, Save more than the average person, buy properties in areas with higher appreciation, receive a greater tax break from deducting the interest on their home since their homes are more expensive and they have a higher top marginal tax rate (Tax Deduction = interest X top marginal rate) and finally contribute more to their retirement funds.

Thing is - the majority of their income comes from a job or their share of the profits from a business they own and it's taxed just like regular income. Plus, people of all income groups build wealth via these methods and can take advantage of the tax benefits.

The difference is that the higher income folks have greater capacity to take advantage and/or more education so they are much less likely to leave money on the table by not taking advantage of various opportunities.

This also means that they're paying more taxes via having more income and wealth streams to be taxed, still - the impact on their finances is MUCH less in terms of it hurting their ability to take care of basic needs and save for the future.

Which nullifies Fox's little discovery of elementary school math.




Peace,









M2

everyone- this is the man to pay attention to on any economic matter.

he's a goddamn juggernaut of monetary logic, i tells ya.

what about those numbers are incorrect???????

I didn't say your numbers were incorrect - but that they had no relevance to the discussion of the tax burdern people of various income strata are carrying with respect to their income and the impact said tax burden has on them economically.

Your point would be correct if we had a flat tax or a reverse taxation system where people of higher incomes paid a lower %, so it obviously has little to no bearing on a discussion as to which income group should be bearing more of the tax burden OR which group could benefit more from a tax cut.

People in the lower 80% income wise spend tax cuts on bills, their children and/or it might enable them to actually save or build significant savings.

If you're in the top 20%, it's fairly easy to save and meet all your expenses so a tax cut doesn't typically transfer to an improvement in economic quality of life.

Economic Quality of Life is the focal point for the tax burden discussion, not 4th grade math as to a group that earns the majority of the income paying the majority of the taxes.

Your original "point" means absolutely nothing with respect to this discussion.




Peace,








M2

um...according to the financial times, cnn money, the economist and the wall sreet journal those numbers are not only accurate but perfectly relevant to the tax burden each income group carries in this country. so, as my original post says, the top 5 percent carry over 50 percent and will continue to carry an even greater amount in the years to come. i raise this issue because many people have this idea that the rich dont pay their fair share.

I never disagreed with your numbers.

I never said the rich don't pay taxes, in fact, in Post #13 - I said they pay more types of taxes due to having more streams of income and more investments.

Nor have I been of the camp that the rich don't pay taxes, I simply believe they should pay more, in fact, I think the top 20% should pay more, which effectively means that I think my own taxes should be higher.

Your point would be valid if the rich earned a disporportionate lOWER share of the total income of US Citizens, but instead they earn a disporportionate GREATER share.

So no matter how you structure the tax laws (Within reason), the Rich pay a higher % of the total tax collected, pointing this out is BASIC MATH.

BUT, none of this speaks to the impact of taxes on a middle income person's standard of life.

People in the top 20% can afford to pay more taxes as the money comes out of discretionary funds or funds that are just saved, while tax cuts for the lower 80% mean more money for healthcare, food, education and potentially savings, since few Americans in the lower 80% have significant savings.

I'm sure the publications you mentioned have all pointed to the negative savings rate amongst Americans.

In fact, lowering taxes on the lower 80% of income earners, coupled with higher taxes on the affluent, could help strengthen the dollar which could conceivably make up for the loss of discretionary income amongst the higher earners.

It's obvious you're quite out of your depth here as you're completely missing the point.

SO let's make it simple - who is going to be hurt more:

A Family of 5 Living off of $45k/yr (AGI) who sees a $2k annual increase in taxes, or a Family of 5 living off of $150k/yr who sees $6k increase in taxes?

Who would benefit more from a reduction in taxes?

Seems to me that $200/month would serve that middle income family well and the higher income family could live without an additional $500/month without it severely impacting their finances.

That's the basic issue at hand here when talking about Tax Burden: what income group pays the highest % of the total tax collected is completely academic, as the real issue is how is your individual tax burden impacting your personal finances.

Not to mention the fact that a family earning $150k/yr (AGI) could probably afford to max out IRA & 401k accounts, while a family living off of $40k/yr can't. Which has even further implications with regards to wealth building, retirement, etc.


Peace,






M2

its like banging my head against a wall.

Some numbers are relevant, some numbers are not. Your numbers are not relevant.

Why in the hell does it matter what percentage of the total "burden" is carried by whom?

The burden that matters is the one being placed on the *individuals*, and the harm it does to them. The rich aren't being driven to the poor-house by their capital gains taxes.


And by the way, if it's true that 52 percent of the taxes are being paid by a handful of people, it's not a sign that they are paying too much in taxes, it's a sign that they are more rich than they have any right to be.

>
>Some numbers are relevant, some numbers are not. Your
>numbers are not relevant.
>
>Why in the hell does it matter what percentage of the total
>"burden" is carried by whom?

it matters cause yall say it does. everyday there is bitching about the rich not paying their fair share. 5 percent of the population carry more than half of the burden.


>The burden that matters is the one being placed on the
>*individuals*, and the harm it does to them. The rich
>aren't being driven to the poor-house by their capital gains
>taxes.

of course not. capitalism rewards those who take risks and those that drive the economy because those things are good for society. overly taxing the rich gives less incentive for people to work hard so that their large sums of money can be taxed for your lazy ass.
>
>
>And by the way, if it's true that 52 percent of the taxes
>are being paid by a handful of people, it's not a sign that
>they are paying too much in taxes, it's a sign that they are
>more rich than they have any right to be.

lol! socialist line #1 'more rich than they have the right to be.' last time i checked we lived in a free country where creating massive sums of wealth is all part of working hard and taking risks.

>>
>>Some numbers are relevant, some numbers are not. Your
>>numbers are not relevant.
>>
>>Why in the hell does it matter what percentage of the total
>>"burden" is carried by whom?
>
>it matters cause yall say it does.

Um, no we don't.

>everyday there is
>bitching about the rich not paying their fair share.

When we say that, we mean that the poor are burdened by the taxes they pay, while the rich are not. Their "fair share" is more than that for the poor.

>5
>percent of the population carry more than half of the
>burden.
>
>
>>The burden that matters is the one being placed on the
>>*individuals*, and the harm it does to them. The rich
>>aren't being driven to the poor-house by their capital gains
>>taxes.
>
>of course not. capitalism rewards those who take risks and
>those that drive the economy because those things are good
>for society.

The rich are not the ones driving the economy. The more money they hoard, the less they are using to drive the economy. It's the middle class, those people who exist in large numbers, have some money, and are likely to spend significant amounts of it in a short period of time, who drive the economy.

>overly taxing the rich gives less incentive for
>people to work hard so that their large sums of money can be
>taxed for your lazy ass.

Do you actually think that the richest 5% are also the ones who work hardest?

>>
>>
>>And by the way, if it's true that 52 percent of the taxes
>>are being paid by a handful of people, it's not a sign that
>>they are paying too much in taxes, it's a sign that they are
>>more rich than they have any right to be.
>
>lol! socialist line #1

I'm not ashamed to be a socialist. You should be ashamed of spewing this Ayn Rand bullshit like it's a religion.

>'more rich than they have the right
>to be.' last time i checked we lived in a free country where
>creating massive sums of wealth is all part of working hard
>and taking risks.

Maybe it would be if those large sums were then redistributed at death. Unfortunately nowadays controlling "massive sums of wealth" is all a part of having ancestors who gave it to you. Either that, or being lucky enough to live under a government without the balls to break up a monopoly.

I didn't think so. Quit complaining and shut the fuck up.

you dont have to be rich to understand the impact of taxing the rich just like you dont have to be poor to understand the impact of taxing the poor. im not surprised tho, your one-dimensional brain couldnt possibly spew anything out without attacking someone's status or character.

At least in feudalism the lords and ladies of the manor were very generous in distributing largesse to the peons. If you're considered a "pillar of the community" (as today's idle rich like to pretend to be), you ought to shoulder a greater share of the responsibility to keep the present social order running smoothly.

You want law and order? Pay the fuck up.

How would you streamline infrastructure is the real question. It aint all just beuracracy.

heck, it NEEDS to go up under Bush as much has he is spending.

******************************

______________________________
"...I'm telling ya these walls are
funny. First you hate 'em, then
you get used to 'em. Enough,
time passes, you get so you
depend on 'em. That's
"institutionalized."

Red, The Shawshank Redemption.







_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

The top 5% of the Population have substantially more money to be taxed, so with a flat tax or a taxation system that is the reverse of what we have now, where higher income people paid a lower tax rate depending on the delta between the rates for the lower 95% income wise and the top 5%, the wealthy would STILL contribute a higher percentage of the total tax collected than the rest of the country.

For example: If people making over $125k (Threshold for top 5%) paid 15% in taxes and people making less paid 25% -

Someone earning $50k pays $12,500 in taxes and the person making $125k pays $18,750.00.

You've basically stated a basic mathematical fact that has ZERO to do with the difficulty of a particular income group to shoulder their share of the tax burden.

The issue is: "Which income group's standard of living would be improved the most by a tax cut"

Obviously, it's the people in the lower 95% of income earners - really the lower 80%, as anyone in the top 20% of income earners is upper-middle class.

Additionally, many of us "Liberals" are upper-middle class and are basically advocating increasing our own taxes, perhaps we'd rather not pay them, but perhaps we see a need to allocate the burden in a way that's more fair to our lower earning counterparts.

Finally, you need to look at the bigger economic picture:

Our country is propped up by foreign money as other countries keep buying our Bonds to make sure our nation has the money to buy their products. Unfortunately, the twin deficits (Trade & Budget) in addition to the negative savings rate amongst Americans, is pushing down the value of the dollar, hurting the yield on the bonds, thus making them less attractive to other countries as Investments.

Eventually, our Government is going to have to raise Interest rates substantially, balance the budget and raise taxes to keep the foreign money flowing in order to keep the country operating AND protect the dollar.

With rising Medicare Costs, the SS issue (regardless of how you view it) and the coming populations shift - the US is facing multiple economic threats.

Pointing out basic mathematics as far who contributes more of the nation's tax revenue is fatuous, when there are far bigger issues that will require some form of tax increase to solve, as any economic damage from the tax increase is better than the alternative.

Also - if the % of total taxes collected by the top 5% increases, it doesn't necessarily mean that their taxes were raised, you could do that via closing tax loopholes, (Which the State & Federal Govts are doing), cracking down on tax shelters or by shrinking the total tax revenue base in a way where the rich pay the same, or receive a substantially greater reduction then everyone else.




Peace,







M2

you succeed at making issue of something im not making issue with. i swear you simply like to type a bunch of nonesense to just to make people think you are right. it's sad. moving on...

******************************

______________________________
"...I'm telling ya these walls are
funny. First you hate 'em, then
you get used to 'em. Enough,
time passes, you get so you
depend on 'em. That's
"institutionalized."

Red, The Shawshank Redemption.







_________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

It's just that simple.

What exactly did I say that was nonsense?

That tax burden is really about the individual and how it affects your finances, not what % your income strata pays of the total tax collected?

Or that since the rich earn a disporportionate share of the total income, they would pay a disporportionate share of the total tax collected even if they paid lower tax rates?

Or is the real truth that YOU posted a bunch of nonsense, got called for it and now want to whine about it?

Please - explain how what I posted was nonsense, I'm very curious to find out what in my last post was nonsense.




Peace,









M2

C'mon now Fox, at least come with a rational discussion of the points M2 raised. This, "you're just typing a bunch of nonsense that I'm not even talking about" is crap, and if you can't see how these points are relevant, you should study some real economics before you make another one of these posts.

-

because this information could certainly ONLY come from one news source. lol.

life is so unfair to them.

--------------------------------------
"If your music was any good it would've
been stolen by the white man by now."

- Triumph the Insult Comic Dog

i posted this because many liberals on here think that the rich get away with paying no tax while everyone else carries the major load. these stats show that is a misconception.

god, you really misunderestimate your audience sometime.

in a proportional tax system, people who earn more, pay more. that's obvious.

now go and argue with post 13.

people always complain about how the rich are not taxes high enough.

you said
"many liberals on here think that the rich get away with paying no tax while everyone else carries the major load"

notice the use of the word "no" in there. "NO tax"
"NO TAX".

and i said "WHO THE FUCK THINKS THAT?"

and you said oh people on here don't think the rich are taxed enough.

well, no "we" don't think they're taxed enough. but this is different to your first statement.

so in response to
"many liberals on here think that the rich get away with paying no tax while everyone else carries the major load"

i'll ask again-
WHO THE FUCK THINKS THAT?
of course the billionaire pays a huge amount more in taxes than the welfare recipient. we know this.

anyway, stop fucking about inventing arguments down here, Mr Murdoch, and go face up to M2. he knows this shit better than i do.

is there a Mr. Literal in the house?

Source

http://www.marxmail.org/facts/us_economy.htm

Shocking FACTS about U.S. income & wealth inequality

Tue, 13 Feb 2001

From: fightback9955@my-deja.com

After 8 years of a genuinely sociopathic "New Democrat" as President of the United States the appalling inequality of income and wealth that was exacerbated under the Republican President Reagan actually WORSENED.

At a time when the top 1% of U.S. citizens owns more wealth than the bottom 95% the new U.S. President wants to further cut the taxes of that wealthiest 1% while vast numbers of the bottom 95% live paycheck- to-paycheck and owe enormous credit card debts.

Whether Democrat or Republican, whether Gore or Bush, the result is the same: the U.S. is damn close to becoming a Third World nation. Perhaps if more poor people in Honduras, the Philippines, India or other Third World countries had credit cards they, too -- like so many heavily-indebted Americans -- would delude themselves that they were "well-off".

The fact is that tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was 88% in the two decades following World War II, a time when the U.S. economy was booming. Working-class and middle-class Americans saved more and charged less then, too.

What follows are some disturbing facts (from www.inequality.org) about just how far from a fair economy we've come, notwithstanding the joint Dem-GOP deceitful propaganda that claims most Americans are "better-off" nowadays:

* Since the mid-1970s, the most fortunate one percent of households have doubled their share of the national wealth. They now hold more wealth than the bottom 95 percent of the population. (Shifting Fortunes)

* In 1998, 18.7 percent of American children lived in poverty, a lower rate than 1993 (19.6 percent), but higher than the 1979 rate of 16.4 percent. (Columbia University, http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp/)

I think this is the second post where he tried to pop shit and instead got teabagged online...

Is that Expertise tried this very same argument a couple of years ago.






Peace,






M2

The fact is that it's the truth. The burden is continuing to be placed on the higher wage earners while people continue to be taken off the tax rolls, despite the propaganda of the left.

Your "4th Grade Math Lesson" would be relevant if you could prove that lower income people are paying a higher percentage of their income than upper income earners. Of course, you can't. In order for that to happen, lower income earners would still be paying a significant share of taxes, and they aren't because a considerable amount of wage earners are having their taxes offset by rebates and tax credits.

Regardless, Fox's statement is correct: the upper income earners pay the bulk of the taxes, and that hasn't changed under Bush. In fact, the burden continues to get bigger.
__________________________
Read the rantings of a .

>The fact is that it's the truth. The burden is continuing
>to be placed on the higher wage earners while people
>continue to be taken off the tax rolls, despite the
>propaganda of the left.
>
>Your "4th Grade Math Lesson" would be relevant if you could
>prove that lower income people are paying a higher
>percentage of their income than upper income earners. Of
>course, you can't.
It's not about the percentage. It's about the amount that % amounts to. If you're STARTING OFF with less, EVEN after the same % is taxed, the IMPACT will be GREATER for the family making less.
If family A is making $200,000/yr. and is taxed 20% = $40,000
If family B is making $50,000/yr. and is taxed 20% = $10,000

Family A is paying more in taxes, but the taxes paid by Family B is impacting their family a lot more than Family A. The tax on Family B is hurting them more financially.

In order for that to happen, lower
>income earners would still be paying a significant share of
>taxes, and they aren't because a considerable amount of wage
>earners are having their taxes offset by rebates and tax
>credits.
If the top 5% are making THAT MUCH MORE than the bottom 95%, there's no chance that they can pay a significant share, because their starting share is SO MUCH LESS than the top 5%.
As for tax credits and rebates, that's not even going to affect the argument. The point is, if you start off with less, your share of taxes paid are going to be significantly less, even if the percentage is the same.

>Regardless, Fox's statement is correct: the upper income
>earners pay the bulk of the taxes, and that hasn't changed
>under Bush. In fact, the burden continues to get bigger.
Nobody's arguing that the rich don't pay a large portion of taxes. For the most part everyone agreed on that The arguments were:
A. Someone said that people complained that the rich paid NO taxes, or not their fair share (which was disputed)
B. The impact on the percentage of taxes were minimal, when in fact, the taxes are felt more by the lower and middle class than the rich, because it's more affordable.

The bottom line is that even though the rich pay more in taxes, they have more to spend, while the lower and middle classes will feel taxes a lot more in their wallet, especially when the percentages are the same.

.

Maybe once your head heals, you'll start making better agruments.

here is what happened. i stated FACTS which were quoted by 4 different sources simply stating the myth the rich dont pay tax was bullshit. then people come at me with irrelevant arguements which are very cumberson to desect. its like when you guys are confronted with hard facts your brains fall outta your heads.

no one actually said that the rich don't pay taxes

It is about the percentage. Your taxes are based on how much income you pull. Taxes don't dictate how much you make; it's the other way around.

If Family A makes $200,000, they deserve to keep as much of the $200,000 as possible. Just because they have more money after paying their taxes than Family B does not make it unfair; after all, they made more money to justify it. If you paid four times as much money, you should be able to keep four times as much of your income as the other family.

But this is all moot anyway because there are people being taken . Upper income earners are going to have the load of the burden, yes, but that's not all that's aiding lower income earners to that point. That same link also kills the idea that rebates and credits are not significant factors leading to the burden as well.
__________________________
Read the rantings of a .

do you understand the difference between a percentage and an absolute? Paying a larger percentage of a shrinking overall tax amount does not mean the "burden" is continuing to get bigger. It could mean the amount of tax the rich are paying, relative to what they were paying in recent years, is increasing, staying the same, or (as it actually is) decreasing. You're such a hack at this point, it seems pointless to even bring up points of fact, 'cause you're just not hearing them.

that the amount of tax that the rich are paying is actually decreasing?

Also, since when has the "overall tax amount" actually shrank? Tax revenues have shrank in past years but only relative to the production and profit of the nation. The burden is defined as how much of the pie is being paid by whom, and there isn't any doubt that the burden is being carried by upper income earners.
__________________________
Read the rantings of a .

paying an increasing percentage of a shrinking overall amount doesn't mean that you're paying more money, in absolute terms. It doesn't mean that your burden is increasing.

Set it up like a fraction, with $ paid by the rich divided by overall tax revenue. If the value of the fraction is growing, that can mean that the tax rate on the rich is increasing, or that overall tax revenue is decreasing. Either one makes the fraction have a greater value.

prove it's shrinking.

And like I said, the burden is defined by who is putting more into the pie, not by how much money is being placed in altogether, or by how much they have left after they pay in.
__________________________
Read the rantings of a .

if the money the rich are paying is decreasing, it's ludicrous to claim that their "burden" is increasing simply because their percentage of overall tax revenue increases. Being a slightly larger piece of a shrinking pie does not mean that they're shouldering more of the load, in fact they're shouldering less absolute load, it's just that the overall load has been lightened a whole lot, because evidently, "deficits don't matter" (c) Dick Cheney.

regardless of whether the overall tax amount is shrinking (which, once again, you have yet to prove), the context was placed within who was paying what.
__________________________
Read the rantings of a .

if I make the same amount of money this year, but pay less taxes on it (and not through a tax shelter), my "burden" is not increasing. And it's misleading to claim that it is. It's not my fault you can't grasp elementary level mathematical concepts.

and no one said that the rich are paying more, meaning paying more out of pocket. my post meant that they contribute over half of the govts tax revenue and it will actually grow. i dont understand all the backlash to these simple facts. but honestly, you dont have to take my word for it. just check every major money/business/finance periodical.

can you grasp the difference between the two?

yes. prove to me what i said was wrong. prove that the rich dont carry over half the tax burden and that it will grow in the next few years. that is all im argueing. people on here when confronted with basic facts spaz out.

NO ONE said your FACTs WERE WRONG!

I repeat, NO ONE SAID YOUR FACTS WERE WRONG!

No one is arguing that the Rich pay a higher % of the total tax collected, they have more money, even with a flat tax or reverse tax rolls where the rich pay a lower individual % this would occur.

The issue is IMPACT on an Individual's finances.

If the % of the total tax collected that comes from the Rich increases, you have to look for two causes: Did their tax rates go up OR did their Tax Bills remain stable while the overall amount of tax collected decreased?

You and Expertise are descending into a new level of hackery as you try to argue basic math and ignore the fact that people are arguing tax burden as a function of individual impact, rather than where tax dollars come from on aggregate.






M2

>The issue is IMPACT on an Individual's finances.
>
>If the % of the total tax collected that comes from the Rich
>increases, you have to look for two causes: Did their tax
>rates go up OR did their Tax Bills remain stable while the
>overall amount of tax collected decreased?

um...ya i know this. i learned this in kindergarden. maybe it took your slow ass until 4th grade to figure it out.

>You and Expertise are descending into a new level of hackery
>as you try to argue basic math and ignore the fact that people
>are arguing tax burden as a function of individual impact,
>rather than where tax dollars come from on aggregate.

what are we argueing besides the fact that the rich pay over 50 percent and will pay higher in the coming years? we are argueing nothing. i understand the two causes for this but its neither here nor there. *chuckles*

I never disagreed with Fox's point, I just questioned the relevance.


The Rich have more money to be taxed, so even in a situation where the poor paid a higher % of their money to taxes than the Rich - wealth people ON AGGREGATAE would pay a higher % of the total tax collected.

Simple Math.

So simply stating that the wealthy pay a higher % of their income to taxes, is analogous to stating the sky is blue and has little to do with which income group ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS suffers the greatest financial impact from their taxes.

That's what Tax Burden is about.

If you make $150k/yr - paying $4k extra in taxes won't have much of an impact on your quality of life - while a family living off of $40k could find themselves getting behind on their bills.

Obviously, the same goes if you give the $150k family and the $40k family each a tax cut of $4k.

It's about individual impact - not stating obvious facts of 4th grade math.






-M2

amazing how expertise and i get lumped into the same catagory when we actually disagree on a lot of issues. i guess its just a testament to the brain power on this board lmao.

Hm?

over the past couple years we have disagreed on how people get taxed, how much is reasonable and how federal income from tax is redistributed. we've disagreed on national defense, military spending. social issues such as abortion and gay rights.

And aren't you claiming Libertarian status? So what's there to disagree over?

How much of their money goes to taxes and the impact paying those taxes has on them.

You cannot judge the tax Burden based on what group pays the most taxes, because that number is determined by two things:

-Amount of money available to be taxed

-# of People within that Group.


Which speaks more to the size collective wealth of that group, moreso than the impact it has on them or what % each person on an individual basis pays in taxes.

Tax Burden is an individual metric, that has to be looked at first by the magnitude of economic impact and then by the % of income that goes to taxes.

For example: a Single Person (With no children) who makes $56k/yr has 25% as their top marginal rate, whilst two married people (w/o kids) who earn $56k/yr together have 15% as their top marginal rate.

The Married people get to keep more of their income, than the single person - which means the single person is getting taxes for not being Married AND has a heavier tax burden to bear.

That's what Tax Burden is all about.

E.g. Warren Buffet may pay a lot more of the total tax collected than a family earning $40k, but the family earning $40k would benefit more from a tax break than Warren would.

That must be why Warren thinks that it would be best for the economy if taxes were raised on the Wealthy, or why he protested the cut in Dividend Tax (Even though he's the one who would benefit more than anyone in the Country) and instead cut the taxes of middle income earners, as it would help Business as a group that is low on disposable income would have more and it would help cut deficits and strengthen the dollar/reduce our reliance on foreign capital.


But I'll let the Conservatives School Buffett on Economics.

LOL



Peace,








M2

none of the information you have mentioned is contrary to the simple facts i mentioned at the start of this thread. your problem is you ASSUME i mean things i have never said. its funny because you go through all this trouble typing out information that actually backs up my post but then go into a tangent in how im wrong. then after i call you on that you say you never disagreed with my post yet you continue to claim some sort of superior knowledge without ever disproving my facts incorrect. youve got me running in circles. i give up. either disprove my information or sit the fuck down.

I wasn't trying to disabuse your point about which income group pays the highest % of the tax collected, simply making a larger point about impact which is what the "liberals" are talking about when they say the Rich don't pay enough taxes or the lower income groups are carrying a harder burden.

My initial response pointed out how elementary your point was and how it had little relevance to the discussion of individual burdens.

Instead you go back to claiming I'm trying to disprove your original point, I never was - just questioned the relevance to a discussion on individual burdens.

But as usual - you'll miss that point and instead go back to claiming that your original point wasn't wrong and engaging in argumentum ad hominem instead of addressing the counter-point of relevance and individual impact.





Peace,








M2

im watching you backpedal like a mofo. *points at your first post*

"You've basically stated a basic mathematical fact that has ZERO to do with the difficulty of a particular income group to shoulder their share of the tax burden.

The issue is: "Which income group's standard of living would be improved the most by a tax cut" "



...you know, he's made it pretty clear that there is more to the issue than whether or not your facts are correct. i don't know if anyone has said that your initial post is incorrect, actually. it's just that it's one very simplistic statistic taken from a complicated equation. and this just isn't an issue that you can reduce like that. it's one of those "the truth, but not the whole truth" type of statements.

now are you going to try and tackle the point that he's raised here? because you seem to be avoiding it like the plague.

i agree with what M2 is saying. i never said i disagreed with what he has said. he has told me he doesnt 'disagree' with the stats i put up (which have been backed up and analyzed by the wall street journal, the economist, business week). i told him what he says was neither here nor there since that isnt the point im trying to make. it amazes me how foolish you all become when i can call people out on something as basic as the tax burden. i state the obvious because its been said on here that the rich dont pay taxes. clearly the rich DO pay taxes because they pay over 50 percent of the total govt income. im not talking about individual tax burdens. you guys know that i have called you liberals out on the whole whiney 'oh the rich dont pay anything' arguement and now you look for some cheap way to say, oh you are wrong look you are wrong. then you say that my numbers are not wrong but that im not telling the whole truth which is a bunch of bullshit considering my point wasnt to harp on individual taxes in the first place. you've all put words into my mouth to heal your own egos beause you knnow my simlpe facts are correct and that the rich carry the burden. how mny times do i have to repeat myself.

your first point was, quite irrefutably, about individual tax burden.

as in, the amount of tax that rich individual pay compared to other people.

if you want to pretend NOW that it wasn't, shit, go ahead. but you'll be the only one who thinks that.

>your first point was, quite irrefutably, about individual tax
>burden.
>
>as in, the amount of tax that rich individual pay compared to
>other people.
>

show me where i said that...

"the top 5 percent of income earners in this country pay between 51-52 percent of the TOTAL national income tax"

as in, the top 5% of individuals

you can try and worm out of it, but this post is about the tax burden on individuals. i don't knwo what the fuck you're trying to turn it inoto- the collective pain of the top 5% of tax paying individuals or some shit- but this is what the issue is, and this is what you're trying to avoid discussing.

shit, you started the discussion, you could at least try and engage it.

******************************
www.okayplayer.com/guidelines
_____________________________
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

www.ummah1421.com/boards
www.northernarc.net