No, not at all. I was exploring the notion of scale. It's like the argument that insurance companies only have a profit margin of 5%, as if that were something horrible. To say the rich receive more or less is irrelevant. It's damned near impossible to create a equal tax cut.
That's because we already have a ed up tax system. I personally subscribe to the notion that everyone should be taxed the same. We shouldn't penalize wealth. But with the current system, any tax cut is mostly to benefit the elite. There's no two ways to look at it.
I wouldn't disagree with that assessment other than to say that "elite" is a difficult to define word and in this context is obviously loaded. The "elite"/rich/wealthy will always reap a bigger reward by virtue of the scaling of what they pay in.
How could everybody be taxed the same? You can't possibly mean flat-tax, because that's absolutely the last thing it does.
Perhaps that's because now, if you look at the quintile averages, the bottom two classes get more money back than they pay in.
No net taxes paid, how can they get a tax cut?
What logic are you using?
The middle fifth pays a 3% income tax rate by 2005 numbers. To cut that by 50% means it is only a 1.5% rate. If you look at total federal liability, that becomes 14.2%, but that is including SS/medicare, capital gains, and probably not factoring in things like credits.
Now if we look at those numbers instead, the Top 1% rates decreased by:
2001 0.6%
2002 0.6%
2003 3.9%
2004 4.8%
2005 5.5%
The bottom 20% income tax rates decreased by:
2001 20.3%
2002 26.6%
2003 28.1%
2004 32.8%
2005 32.8%
Yes, I do mean a flat-tax. Why should anybody be penalized for being successful? Why is government taxing the only way to level the playing field between poor and rich?
You're still talking percentages. Give me dollar figures or shut up.
On the surface, I like the concept. But a, say, 20% chunk of my income would kill me right now. Mr. CEO, not so much. It seems like to me, that it hurts the low to middle income earners.
Yeah, but you have the same voting power as Mr CEO. And Mr CEO would be more than happy to help you get your voice out to get taxes down to 15%.
On top of that, government wouldn't have as much money to go around either.
Let me ask you, would you rather Mr CEO have the money (and maybe, if you're lucky start a new business and hire you) or Nancy Pelosi?
The current tax system already penalizes the poor and middle-class. Rich guys send money overseas and don't pay taxes either way. At least get some of that money back in the country and put it on production.
It would be 16% of new sales. No income tax.
A 16% sales tax? On top of 8.25%?
I'm out.
OK...
Low income workers can receive more than $3,000 earned income credit, with an already tax liability of ZERO, and also get Child Tax credits.
They get money. Not pay any.
Why should they get more?
Who gives a damn how much less the rich people pay? Congress already spend too much money they shouldn't. Make congress spend withing it's means rather than demonizing the rich.
No 16 even.
How much money did the 1% top earners saved for every one of those $3,000 that are handed out based on those tax cuts? Dollar figures please.
If you don't know, don't answer please. I'm tired of your incessant ing and constant deflection on the topic.
Who the cares. I'm shouldn't do your homework. You are really pissing me off by going into trivial tangents.
Beside, what you liberals fail to comprehend is that the math doesn't work that way. It's not static because those of wealth vary their income depending of various factors, including tax rates.
I'm tired of you petty class warfare. You make me want to -slap you.
Want numbers?
Average taxes paid by the top 1% (pretax income minus after tax income from table 1c):
2000 $482,600
2001 $379,700
2002 $336,300
2003 $346,200
2004 $407,700
2005 $487,000
Are you too lazy to look them up and throw them in my face?
Thing is, the more you tax, the more they shelter, and less revenue is collected.
Funny how the revenues came back up at a lower tax rate, huh...
Wonder how much more money the rich circulated in the economy because if a lower effective tax rate?
Ever get a job from a poor person?
Thank you for making my point.
Now go ahead and keep on whining about class warfare on your soapbox...
You are the one propagating class warfare. I'm the one calling you out on it.Thank you for making my point.
Now go ahead and keep on whining about class warfare on your soapbox...
-------- <- This thread
O
/|\ <- You
/ \
How much did they make in the first place?
He doesn't get it. He's ing about a $3,000 handoff, when a 1% cut on those numbers he provided don't even amount to that much.
I'm tired of pasting information. Here it is though:
2000 $1,460,600
2001 $1,156,000
2002 $1,024,100
2003 $1,092,800
2004 $1,299,300
2005 $1,558,500
Look at the link I supplied earlier.
No, I get it.
I just hate people with a passion who have the en lement mentality, and ask our government to steal more from producers, for them.
I do? How?
You got tired of waving at it? We're tired of you waving at it, too.
And that has nothing to do with any capital gains or alternative compensation, right?
Besides, 1% of the Top 1% earners income is less than the benefits the 20% receive. Care to compare that to the maximum $5657 Earned Income Credit multiplied by more than 20 times the numbers of the top 1%, plus the $400 Making Work Pay credit, plus other Child Care credits?
When I said more than $3,000, did you think it stopped shortly after that? I'll bet the average for 30% of the population well exceeds $3,000. Therefore, if you just ask the 1% class to pay for maybe 30% of the people at an average $3,000, then that is $90,000 each. 1% of the average 2005 income is only $15,585. You have to take almost 2% of the top 10% wage earners to redistribute this money.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
