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.
Here is a link - States' budget crises will hurt millions - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/03/17/states_budget_crises_will_hurt_millions/ - broken link)
There is the old cliche of something akin to the only thing you can count on in this life is taxes and death. Now, it seems, taxes could literally cause your 'death'.
Here is an interesting note:
"And in New York, state Senate Republicans are opposing a plan to generate $1.9 billion by closing corporate tax loopholes."
I guess it's more important for people to have jobs so "gubmint" can tax those folks....
The problem in the US is not the level of taxation but the distribution of the tax burden. Too much tax revenue is being collected from the poor, working and middle classes while far too little from the management and investment classes. IMHO no one with an income lower than the 85th percentile (approximately $150k) should be paying any Federal Income Taxes.
The problem in the US is not the level of taxation but the distribution of the tax burden. Too much tax revenue is being collected from the poor, working and middle classes while far too little from the management and investment classes. IMHO no one with an income lower than the 85th percentile (approximately $150k) should be paying any Federal Income Taxes.
Considering that the rich pay about 80% of all taxes to the federal government, I'd say you have no evidence that the rich do not pay their fair share.
No, not even for a UHI scheme. Let the 15% that benefit the most financially from Federal spending pay for thier profits and the protection of the profits.
I'd say Greg probably makes either povery, or $149,999 a year, based upon his statements. I'd like to hear why he thinks that someone who makes $50,000 a year, should not contribute to paying for the benefits that they receive.
Considering that the rich pay about 80% of all taxes to the federal government, I'd say you have no evidence that the rich do not pay their fair share.
Twenty years ago, the top 1% took home 12.7% of all the income. No data yet for 2007, but in 2005, the top 1% took home 21.8% of all the income. That's an increase of 72%. Meanwhile, in 1987 the top 1% paid an average of 24.7 cents in federal income tax on each dollar of AGI. By 2005, that had shrunk to 21.4 cents. That's a tax cut of about 14%. More and more money. Lower and lower taxes. Explain the "fairness"...
Twenty years ago, the top 1% took home 12.7% of all the income. No data yet for 2007, but in 2005, the top 1% took home 21.8% of all the income. That's an increase of 72%.
Your statistic does not mean that they pay less taxes, it means that they make more today then they did 20 years ago..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Meanwhile, in 1987 the top 1% paid an average of 24.7 cents in federal income tax on each dollar of AGI. By 2005, that had shrunk to 21.4 cents. That's a tax cut of about 14%. More and more money. Lower and lower taxes. Explain the "fairness"...
That statistic again does not show that they are under taxed, it means that they are paying sufficient taxes.. 21.4% of tax revenue should be sufficient to cover the federal debt.
Now why dont you find the statistics for the amount of taxes that people who make $25,000 a year pay. Unless its more then 21.4% of their income (the amount the rich pay), you have no argument.
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is a UHI scheme?
"Universal Heath Insurance" -
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.