Reply With Quote
What makes you think so? With all the unemployment, bankruptcy and default, I'd expect the rich to get even richer, relatively speaking.
This decade has had a pronounced increase in the gap between the rich and the poor. It hold true to the Idea that Republicans get rich people richer. The only problem is that they screw everything else up in the process.
This will correct later, rather than sooner.
What makes you think so? With all the unemployment, bankruptcy and default, I'd expect the rich to get even richer, relatively speaking.
The hard working, intelligent, & passionate still get ahead. That is natural law. No man-made system or boundaries can with natural law.
No reason in listening to losers tell you, you will lose.
The results are similar to stuff I dug up some years back. If you don't like it, find your own reports. I would guess, though, with the emphasis on only the Federal income tax in the "let's feel sorry for rich guys" articles, that you won't find much support for your presuppositions.
What % of the population pays taxes doesn't mean . It's how much total revenue collected that means something.
It sure as means something if you're in the half that has to provide the revenue the government collects.
dc is all libs. there is also no reason and pointing to other countries who have the upper 50% pay the taxes. It is a great sales pitch to get elected. "i am going to make a law, payed by the rich, to (allegedly) help the poor." The question is -is it right? Why is it not considered stealing?
Also there is the idea that all citizens would have to pay if a politicial wants to bailout another group of companies. Hopefully deterring politicians from spending our money to get reelected. If everyone was paying the same percent, it would be more fair.
how much taxes of the bottom's total revenue does the govt. collect?
In the bear market years, the unsuccessful co, will go under, and when the market recovers and the bull markets come back, more people will use the more opportunities. Bankruptcy, unemployment, and defualt shouldn't have anything to do with lack of opportunties.
federal tax dont mean
when ur paying other taxes on goods/services under different les
No, I picked apart the data. If you don't like facts continue your dilusion you have something to say on this matter.
Ok, here's another table for you. It's transcribed from Figure 3 on p. 24.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publica...show/2282.html
Figure 3. Federal, State and Local Effective Tax Rates, Calendar Year 2004
Federal, State and Local Effective Tax Rates, 2004
Source: Tax FoundationCode:Federal State and Total Taxes Local Taxes Taxes Bottom 20% 5.0% 7.9% 13.0% Second 20% 12.9% 10.3% 23.2% Third 20% 17.4% 10.9% 28.2% Fourth 20% 20.2% 11.2% 31.3% Top 20% 24.3% 10.3% 34.5%
What nonsense. It's already been established per the IRS that the bottom 47% pay zero federal taxes. Your little propoganda piece is for people who don't know any better. (in response to post above)
Last edited by 2centsworth; 10-06-2009 at 11:02 PM.
I agree to that aspect. They are including the taxes people don't see. However, if we remove the employer payroll tax alone, we get the following from the lowest 60%:
That of course varies with single filers to married with children. If we were to break it down farther, I'm sure it supports the contention that 47% of the people pay no federal taxes. Actually, I would assume more than 47% by those numbers.Code:Income bracket % taxes Lowest 20% -0.65% Second 20% 3.55% Middle 20% 8.45%
It means allot.
People who who are net receivers of federal tax monies should not have the right to vote in politicians who promise them other of people's money.
This is legalized theft and should be stopped.
So you don't believe the Tax Foundation? Are they too liberal for you?
"net receivers of federal tax monies should not have the right to vote"
this is GREAT ADVICE. It would disenfranchise most govt-hating/handout-loving RED STATES!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
