Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wait a minute. It's more important to you that they took deductions, not the bottom line of paying $16B?
400/$16,000,000,000,000.00
Do the math Sherlock, they deserve those deductions.
Unreal
My point is that if we go out to eat, and my bill comes out to $11 and yours comes out to $20, and we both have a coupon for $10/off our bill, you can't get mad that you paid 15/16 of the bill and I paid 1/16 of the bill when we both took the same deal.
That's the whole point of a progressive tax system. As a society, we realize that some of the money you earn should go to securing your own livelihood & well-being. You are getting mad at poor people for not earning more than it costs to secure their own livelihood & well-being, and are trying to gain sympathy for the rich who earn far more than that limit.
I happened to catch this from Mark Levin the other day, found it striking, and decided to look it up on line when I got home. Mark Levin
Economist Mark J Perry found this interesting factoid. According to 2009 IRS data, the 400 top taxpayers in 2009 shelled out $16.1 billion, while the bottom 50% of taxpayers totaled $19.5 billion in taxes, or less than 25% more.
Something to cite next time someone claims that the rich don't pay their fair share in taxes.
Note also how inherently unstable this structure is. What happens if just a few of those 400 decide to take their money and go to some small offshore tax haven? Wouldn't it be more stable to have a much more broad-based structure instead of trying to drain so much dough from such a tiny group?
Just because they paid more does not mean that they paid their fair share compared to their actual wealth. As far as them hiding their money they have been doing and will continue to do so.
How much these among the top 400 made per capita, compared to the bottom 50%? And I'm assuming that will be the math only for income, not capital gains.
Don't make too much sense because poor republicans heads will explode
What is Levin's take on that? He ignored that fact, didn't he? Just as y'all do, when tying incomes and taxes together.
no he didnt, the subject is tax revenues, not personal income, but you dont know the difference
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime
Don't make too much sense because poor republicans heads will explode
What doesnt make sense is you switching the topic from tax revenues, to personal incomes, as if you think the money is governments, and they allow people to keep some of it.
no he didnt, the subject is tax revenues, not personal income, but you dont know the difference
Well, THAT was the premise of my argument. He didn't, and he won't. And NONE of you would. Because it wouldn't make for a political statement, the continued push for your political ideology.
The bottom 50% surely sound like a happy bunch when you attach $20 Billion as a "collective" income and not paying enough taxes after all. That perspective would change dramatically if you were to consider that that comes from 69 million households... and not help with your agenda.
Well, THAT was the premise of my argument. He didn't, and he won't. And NONE of you would. Because it wouldn't make for a political statement, the continued push for your political ideology.
The bottom 50% surely sound like a happy bunch when you attach $20 Billion as a "collective" income and not paying enough taxes after all. That perspective would change dramatically if you were to consider that that comes from 69 million households... and not help with your agenda.
So the premise of your argument was that you had to discuss a topic that doesnt at all pertain to the thread, and then think you interjected something worthy.
So the premise of your argument was that you had to discuss a topic that doesnt at all pertain to the thread, and then think you interjected something worthy.
Guess what, you didnt.
The premise of the argument was... missing perspective, leading to grounds built on less information not more. Because that makes very inconvenient when the idea is to push a personal agenda by people like Levin, and followers like you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
What do you blame your ignorance on because there hasnt been cuts in the education system
Can you explain a drop in public sector employment by 500K if there haven't been cuts made in the education system (a major chunk of those layoffs are from education system)?
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 06-14-2012 at 10:25 AM..
What doesnt make sense is you switching the topic from tax revenues, to personal incomes, as if you think the money is governments, and they allow people to keep some of it.[/quote]
If people are keep posting untruthful and misleading posts there will always be probelms with the responses that they get.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
