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.
It's top 2% bc he makes $250k a year. But $250k a year is rich because it's in the top 2%? This is exactly what you have been saying.
My comprehension is clearly not the issue.
Your comprehension is lacking. A poster was making 250k and claims to not be rich. I stated that 250k is in the top 2% and would be considered rich. You came in asking about arbitrary numbers about 250k without reading the previous posts. So basically it's you butting into a conversation without reading the previous posts.
no the answer is to stop taxing income...tax consumption..not income
look at warren buffet, his company makes billions,, he SPENDS (consumption) 100's of millions..yet his income (salary to himself) less than a million
The poor would pay a HIGHER percentage of income on taxes, since they consume at a higher percent of income. I don't think that would be fair for lower end families. Essentially, they would consume less as to not pay as much. We are a consumer based economy, that doesn't sound like a good idea.
We do have capital gains taxes, dividends tax, etc...so that people like Warren Buffet do pay taxes.
Why would we have a tax system that makes the poor pay a higher percent?
O-M-G... ... I'm sorry, there's just way too many pages... but there is this: neither Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Rush Limbaugh, etc. get taxed on their entire yearly income. I've read at least 10 pages of the 30 odd in this thread without seeing this basic truth. After the first couple hundred kilobucks the average elite is in the clear for whatever else comes their way... !!!! Let sleeping dogs lie. Maybe it's me but I wasn't thinking that the rich needed to be stripped of half their fortunes before this thread. Keep rubbing my face in the inequality of things and... as long as I have the pitchfork out... ...
That's the dumbest retort ever. You essentially don't understand the way the system works and have empathy towards those that make more than you while not seeing the correlation between income tax breaks and lack of social services.
If you really did grow up in the ghetto, you would have known people on welfare or used subsidized healthcare. Which is paid for by income taxes. Yet, you're looking out for those same people?
You didn't grow up like that. Lying fits the narrative a bit better. Your information is lacking on key items (payroll taxes by the poor, the fact that EVERY income tax break is correlated with income disparities since the 1980s, that FEW people have 25% fluctuations on income year over year over year, and that social services REALLY are effective).
You're the one who is creating this 'liberal' vs. 'non-liberal' narrative, not me... So I SUGGEST you put down your proverbial pom poms and actually look at the facts.
Please prove me wrong, I walked you through where you can get the numbers to do it, look below.
Believe what you want about me, do you really think I care?
You keep getting stuck in the Income tax break dichotomy. Tax rates are tools by the elite to keep everyone but the WEALTHY (not high income earners) in power. There are so many other factors involved; to use a simplistic measurement is not the way to go. I guarantee I could tear apart that “fact” with tons of data but to me it is not the issue, it is just a side issue that the elite want us to play.
Some social services are effective, mostly in being a trap but some help is better than none. Do you really want a society where some people simply exist? I don’t I want abundance to spread and people to have a tiny stake in the game where they have a chance to rise above it.
So far the ONLY person on this thread who has gone to the actual source, the IRS statistics page and provided facts is me.
Here is a very simple project for you. Go here SOI Tax Stats - Individual Statistical Tables by Size of Adjusted Gross Income download the excel spreadsheet for the year 2000, Table 1.1. do a sum total of Colum D the Total Adjusted Gross Income for those making over $200,000 a year. The total will be $1.7 Trillion. Now do the same for 2002, come back and tell me what the total income earned for everyone making over $200,000 that year. Let’s see who is wrong about income fluctuation. I will give you this, I was wrong about 25%.
Also, FYI income in the under $200k group rose by $200 billion.
again are you going to call a workingclass cop..rich????
YES!!! If the guy is making 491k a YEAR YESS!!!
again you are not understanding...income does not make a person rich...wealth does
even our millioniare sports hero's are not rich...just because TODAY they are earning multi million does not mean that tomorrow they will be a hasbeen and be poor
a cop is a workingclass profession
a teacher is a workingclass profession
a mechanic is a workingclass profession
it doesnt matter if with overtime they pulled in 250k..they are not rich
The poor would pay a HIGHER percentage of income on taxes, since they consume at a higher percent of income. I don't think that would be fair for lower end families. Essentially, they would consume less as to not pay as much. We are a consumer based economy, that doesn't sound like a good idea.
We do have capital gains taxes, dividends tax, etc...so that people like Warren Buffet do pay taxes.
Why would we have a tax system that makes the poor pay a higher percent?
you mean the poor would have to pay thier fair share
I already showed you the poor pay NOTHING in taxes...do YOU really think have a rich person CARRYING a poor person is fair???????
the bottom 50% of EARNERS, pay only 3% of all income taxes recieved
most earning under 50k pay NOTHING to include their payroll tax...(I already showed MINE at 60k and get EVERYTHING, to include the amount I paid in payroll, back.)
when I first heard of the fairtax, I thought the same thing the poor would get hit..that is a lie...think of the taxes on that lexus the rich guy will buy..its the rich that SPEND the 16-18 trillion GDP we have...the fair tax actually would hit the rich harder..but at least its FAIR, it is based ion comsumption..not some lamebrain idea that an income of 250k is rich
you are just repeating the LIES of the left, who dont WANT TO LOSE THE POWER OF THE IRS and the TAXMAN......."control the gold you control the people"
why would anybody want to DISCRIMINATE and tax people at different levels????...I always thought the left was about equality....or is it only control they want......do they like being SUBJECTED to power of the government taxman??????
Please prove me wrong, I walked you through where you can get the numbers to do it, look below.
Believe what you want about me, do you really think I care?
You keep getting stuck in the Income tax break dichotomy. Tax rates are tools by the elite to keep everyone but the WEALTHY (not high income earners) in power. There are so many other factors involved; to use a simplistic measurement is not the way to go. I guarantee I could tear apart that “fact” with tons of data but to me it is not the issue, it is just a side issue that the elite want us to play.
Some social services are effective, mostly in being a trap but some help is better than none. Do you really want a society where some people simply exist? I don’t I want abundance to spread and people to have a tiny stake in the game where they have a chance to rise above it.
So far the ONLY person on this thread who has gone to the actual source, the IRS statistics page and provided facts is me.
Here is a very simple project for you. Go here SOI Tax Stats - Individual Statistical Tables by Size of Adjusted Gross Income download the excel spreadsheet for the year 2000, Table 1.1. do a sum total of Colum D the Total Adjusted Gross Income for those making over $200,000 a year. The total will be $1.7 Trillion. Now do the same for 2002, come back and tell me what the total income earned for everyone making over $200,000 that year. Let’s see who is wrong about income fluctuation. I will give you this, I was wrong about 25%.
Also, FYI income in the under $200k group rose by $200 billion.
Please, prove me wrong.
You started the ENTIRE thing about INCOME TAX. I'm fixated, YOU STARTED it. You ARE fixated on the fact that I am mentioning what the thread is about.
You're saying that most people have a 25% fluctuation in income? Your stats does not prove fluctuations by the majority of people. It simply shows fluctuations exist. That's all. Yes, I concede...people make more money one year than years. However, what percentage of people. What is the mean percentage of fluctuation? That's the big question. You're simply looking at the fluctuation and projecting it to the majority at the percent fluctuation. It's like looking at the average score of a class on 1 test and comparing it to another test and seeing that average grade changed. Is it possible that a few people went from an A to F rather than the entire class changing?
The income under 200k rose by $200billion. Huh From the CBO "The average amount by which people who were poor fell below the poverty line has increased sharply since 1996, and was 23 percent larger in 2002 than in 1996, after adjusting for inflation." I don't think that the income rose by much.
According to the soc. department at USC, wealth owned by the bottom 18% stood at 8.7 in 1983...now it's at 6%. The poor are getting poorer, technically not true...they're getting more in debt.
Most economics agree there is a wealth gap. One way is to fund for services to rectify that gap. It's really not a controversial issue.
You're proposing doing away with income taxes since it hurts the rich? Your stance has no solid bearing. Yes, you extrapolated stats from the IRS. Good for you. However, you probably didn't look at the total disparity between rich and poor.
What has effectively happened in the US is that the poor are left without many choices and often look towards lending as a means to solve financial woes. So instead of looking at systemic changes (more public housing, better public education, more after school programs, universal healthcare, cheaper tuition) we created a predatory lending industry.
What has happened is that the top 90% of WAGE EARNERS have far and above outpaced raises than the bottom 10% and even middle 50% (40% increase for the top 90%, 8% increase for the middle 50%, and a 4% for the bottom 10%...again from the CBO). So what we can surmise is that the ranks of the poor have grown faster than the ranks of the rich and their wages remained essentially flat.
I think what you're proposing would simply be a widening of the wealth gap.
again you are not understanding...income does not make a person rich...wealth does
even our millioniare sports hero's are not rich...just because TODAY they are earning multi million does not mean that tomorrow they will be a hasbeen and be poor
a cop is a workingclass profession
a teacher is a workingclass profession
a mechanic is a workingclass profession
it doesnt matter if with overtime they pulled in 250k..they are not rich
250k is middleclass
Income allows you to buy things. Profession and wealth are not the same.
We aren't talking about SOCIAL class.
250k is rich. A multi-million dollar sports star is rich.
It's not difficult. Your fixation on cops making nearly 500k not being rich because he's a cop is absurd. If a lawyer made the same amount as the cop would he rich? I mean you're adding profession to this mixing SOCIAL CLASS and ECONOMIC CLASS together. They are similar, but slightly different.
The income under 200k rose by $200billion. Huh From the CBO "The average amount by which people who were poor fell below the poverty line has increased sharply since 1996, and was 23 percent larger in 2002 than in 1996, after adjusting for inflation." I don't think that the income rose by much.
According to the soc. department at USC, wealth owned by the bottom 18% stood at 8.7 in 1983...now it's at 6%. The poor are getting poorer, technically not true...they're getting more in debt.
Most economics agree there is a wealth gap. One way is to fund for services to rectify that gap. It's really not a controversial issue.
You're proposing doing away with income taxes since it hurts the rich? Your stance has no solid bearing. Yes, you extrapolated stats from the IRS. Good for you. However, you probably didn't look at the total disparity between rich and poor.
What has effectively happened in the US is that the poor are left without many choices and often look towards lending as a means to solve financial woes. So instead of looking at systemic changes (more public housing, better public education, more after school programs, universal healthcare, cheaper tuition) we created a predatory lending industry.
What has happened is that the top 90% of WAGE EARNERS have far and above outpaced raises than the bottom 10% and even middle 50% (40% increase for the top 90%, 8% increase for the middle 50%, and a 4% for the bottom 10%...again from the CBO). So what we can surmise is that the ranks of the poor have grown faster than the ranks of the rich and their wages remained essentially flat.
I think what you're proposing would simply be a widening of the wealth gap.
Quote:
Most economics agree there is a wealth gap. One way is to fund for services to rectify that gap. It's really not a controversial issue.
and the rich/poor gap has increased WORLD WIDE, especially in europe where they tax the crap out of the 'rich'...sorry but socialism doesnt work
You started the ENTIRE thing about INCOME TAX. I'm fixated, YOU STARTED it. You ARE fixated on the fact that I am mentioning what the thread is about.
You're saying that most people have a 25% fluctuation in income? Your stats does not prove fluctuations by the majority of people. It simply shows fluctuations exist. That's all. Yes, I concede...people make more money one year than years. However, what percentage of people. What is the mean percentage of fluctuation? That's the big question. You're simply looking at the fluctuation and projecting it to the majority at the percent fluctuation. It's like looking at the average score of a class on 1 test and comparing it to another test and seeing that average grade changed. Is it possible that a few people went from an A to F rather than the entire class changing?
The income under 200k rose by $200billion. Huh From the CBO "The average amount by which people who were poor fell below the poverty line has increased sharply since 1996, and was 23 percent larger in 2002 than in 1996, after adjusting for inflation." I don't think that the income rose by much.
According to the soc. department at USC, wealth owned by the bottom 18% stood at 8.7 in 1983...now it's at 6%. The poor are getting poorer, technically not true...they're getting more in debt.
Most economics agree there is a wealth gap. One way is to fund for services to rectify that gap. It's really not a controversial issue.
You're proposing doing away with income taxes since it hurts the rich? Your stance has no solid bearing. Yes, you extrapolated stats from the IRS. Good for you. However, you probably didn't look at the total disparity between rich and poor.
What has effectively happened in the US is that the poor are left without many choices and often look towards lending as a means to solve financial woes. So instead of looking at systemic changes (more public housing, better public education, more after school programs, universal healthcare, cheaper tuition) we created a predatory lending industry.
What has happened is that the top 90% of WAGE EARNERS have far and above outpaced raises than the bottom 10% and even middle 50% (40% increase for the top 90%, 8% increase for the middle 50%, and a 4% for the bottom 10%...again from the CBO). So what we can surmise is that the ranks of the poor have grown faster than the ranks of the rich and their wages remained essentially flat.
I think what you're proposing would simply be a widening of the wealth gap.
Bummer, I knew you would not o it, I knew you were trapped inside the world of platitudes and rhetoric. I am sure you are a nice person so I will be nice but I am bummed. I had thought you might be someone who is looking to better society and truly help people, as opposed to just spout of pep rally slogans in hopes that I will spout the other "teams" rhetoric.
As you see, I don't do that. I am not part of the other team.
As I have said, I started this to show how it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate the amount of money required to run the government that most on both the left and right want, from the rich.
I have given those figures from post #1 on, so I won't rehash them here.
My second point was that relying on the "rich" for revenue is a very risky proposition. The problem being their income is volatile, mainly because most "rich" are transient rich meaning they have one time events that create high income, many others just have extreme volatility in their high income. Most of the time you will see very different names on returns over $200,000 from one year to the next.
Here is what I was hoping you would see for yourself.
Year 2000 total income for everyone making an AGI over $200,000 was $1.7 Trillion, by 2002 it was $1.251 trillion for the same cohort. That is a 26% reduction in income and revenue. Personally I do not want to rely on that for funding government, you end up with major problems such as we are seeing in most states today. We have not seen the effects of what this is doing to the Federal government because of the Fed. Just wait, it won’t be pretty.
Best of luck to you.
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.
