Reply With Quote
Remember, it's an average of the top 1% earners. Some will make several million more than the average, and pay even more taxes.
Can't you bring the link up yourself, or do you not have Excel to load it into?
Here is what is says:
Comprehensive household income equals pretax cash income plus income from other sources. Pretax cash income is the sum of wages, salaries, self-employment income, rents, taxable and nontaxable interest, dividends, realized capital gains, cash transfer payments, and retirement benefits plus taxes paid by businesses (corporate income taxes and the employer's share of Social Security, Medicare, and federal unemployment insurance payroll taxes) and employee contributions to 401(k) retirement plans. Other sources of income include all in-kind benefits (Medicare, Medicaid, employer-paid health insurance premiums, food stamps, school lunches and breakfasts, housing assistance, and energy assistance). Households with negative income are excluded from the lowest income category but are included in totals.
Remember, it's an average of the top 1% earners. Some will make several million more than the average, and pay even more taxes.
I don't ask anybody to pay anything, what part of that you don't understand?
Under the current progressive tax system, the one you love to and complain about, tax hikes hit the richer people the hardest, and inherently, tax cuts benefit the rich people the most. This is a fact. There's nothing to argue about.
You keep on coming over with the strawman that I somehow support the current progressive tax system, when I already posted that I'm actually on the camp that do not like it and would rather see a more fair system.
Despite that, you keep getting up on your soapbox and making speeches none of which contradict the point I called you out for. So please, knock yourself out yapping about a different subject, just leave me out of it.
By a combination of things, starting with that propaganda piece you linked.
How about going back, and reading your responses from an unbiased viewpoint, and consider what the tone is. Maybe you meant something else, but you sure have slammed the rich.
You still haven't shown how that 'piece' is 'biased'. Are the numbers wrong? What are the 'good' numbers?
I don't believe that's your intent. I think you backed out of your original line of thinking.
Agreed. So why do you point out the obvious, as if it's a sin?
Then what was the purpose of the link you posted? What intent do you think that has? Talk about strawman... That is all that link is!
You keep contradicting mine. Apparently, you point is unclear to us. I did see where you prefer a flat tax, but then you seem to complain the poor get screwed on the tax breaks. A flat tax would make then pay even more. You seem hypocritical.
One mistake might have been thinking WC was talking to you in particular, ElNono.
It all might be a soliloquy. WC's casual disdain for details of the conversation betrays his casual self absorption, at least, and his casual abuse of posters is as unthinking as it is over the top and sometimes obscene.
Yes I did. Sorry you didn't understand.
No, really. I didn't ask anybody to pay for anything. I dare you finding a quote where I said so.
Because when somebody pointed out that the tax cuts were for the rich (which is inherently true), your re ed persona came out playing all butt hurt to the comment. I called you out on that.
The purpose of the link I posted is to show the DOLLAR FIGURE of what each portion of the tax paying citizens are set to save with the cuts. It clearly shows what anybody with half a brain knows: The top 1% benefits the most from tax cuts.
Apparently, everybody else but you understood what I was saying just fine.
The poor do get screwed on tax breaks. Again, inherently part of the current tax system.
And now I'm hypocritical because I want the poor and the rich to pay the same share?
The problem is that the numbers you posted support my claim... and confirm the 'biased piece'...
You mean this:
I only pointed out that everyone got a break. You assumed what you wanted to assume, and in calling me out on a incorrect assumption, had me thinking your intents were other than you claim now. If I was wrong about your viewpoint, it's because of the way you did things.I thought tax-cuts for the elite spurred job growth....
Yes, projections upon projections.
A 2002 article, which is not adjusted for current facts, and based on assumed 2010 dollars.
Very, very lame to submit almost 8 years later, when the predictions are now dispelled.
No they don't.
How can you get a tax break if in reality, you don't pay taxes?
No, hypocritical because you want a flat tax, but want a larger redistribution of wealth to the poor.And now I'm hypocritical because I want the poor and the rich to pay the same share?
No, I mean this:
You already provided the adjusted numbers. They support my point.
This is where your strawman begins. The non-rich do pay taxes. I'm not in the top 1% and I pay taxes. What percentage of the entire tax-paying population falls in your $3,000 handout scenario? Even those guys are set to gain, at the most, $3,000, which is a drop in the bucket for what the rich save with the cuts. As a matter of fact, the more you make the more you benefit with any kind of cut.
quote please.
Only by looking at the casual coincidence, and disregard for how far some are off.
They are too far off to be statistically acceptable for a 2010 prediction. The 2005 number is the closest at an 11.1% error. The first two years are way off, which should have been the closest to predict. 2003 is 21% off and 2004 is 29% off.
It doesn't matter how far off they are, the point they make is that under the current tax system, the rich benefit the most from tax cuts. Even 'corrected' projections do not dispel that.
I give up. You complain about the other income taxes not getting as large a tax break when their tax rates are less than 1990 levels, and the top rates are coming back down to 1990 levels. We move into the discussion of the bottom two brackets not paying taxes, but getting money back, then you change the argument again when I point out they pay no taxes to reduce.
Yep, I give up. No way to answer someone who keeps changing the debate.
And you ignore my reference to the 1990 levels, how much more the lower brackets pay compared to the top brackets.
The upper bracket tax burdens unfairly went up in the 90's. Why is it wrong to restore them to sane levels?
This is from page 2:
That's what were debating here until you finally conceded that the rich do indeed get the bigger benefit of tax cuts under the current system.
You changed your tune a long time ago. You may proceed with your new topic, just leave me out of it.
See, I don't think WC perceived your outlines too well to begin with, ElNono. In principle there's no way you can be stuck in a conversation some dude is having with himself.
Echo chamber?
Reading is a very mysterious process.
Reading this thread is baffling the outta me.
But yeah, there's the cultural storm, too. Compounded by voluntary hyperexposure to the sources.
Liar.
I never said or implied they were even handed. Saying that everyone benefited from the tax break is not saying it was fair in everyone's perception. I especially never used any words to imply "even-handed."
Understand definitions like this: A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.
Don't associate your ASSumptions with my statements.
That's the problem. You keep attacking points I never made.
Will you please stop asking me to waste my time anymore. Post something relevant, or be ignored. I'm tired of trying to debate a twit.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions