Taxes

the media is constantly complaining about the rich. the Democrats critize the conservative right for promoting tax cuts for the wealthy. Did you know that wealthiest 2% pay for 60% percent of the taxes in this country. the upper income brackets can pay up to 50% of their income to the federal government. 1\2! is such a tax cut really that bad for those citizens who have to ppay so much of their money? such taxes and those who promote them, cannot truly believe in the ideals of capitalism and the united states.

If you earn thirty million dollars a year, you'll miss your money less than if you earn thirty thousand. This is the principle behind tax brackets.In my opinion, tax brackets aren't necessarily a good thing, but they will remain a necessary evil as long as government spending is so high. If the government extracted the same amount of taxes as they do now with a flat tax rate, it would push many more Americans behind the poverty line, not all of whom can do anything about it.------------------
-Traz

quote:

---

If you earn thirty million dollars a year, you'll miss your money less than if you earn thirty thousand. This is the principle behind tax brackets.

---

I'm glad somebody else sees this besides me.In my discussion with Red Vento about this he basically denied that this could even be possible, or that how one feels the loss of money was important in the least.

Im not talking about those members of our society who earn 30 million dollars. If you earn 150k the government still takes half. a drop from 150 to 75 is a huge jump. That two percent has an even smaller percentage of those who earn 30 million dollars. that is an exaggerated claim.

.[This message has been edited by Winston Smith Asriel, 03-03-2003]

From Funny Times, March 2003Moose

quote:

---

Im not talking about those members of our society who earn 30 million dollars.

---

Why not?IMPACT Press: Article: "Across the Great Divide: The Wealth Gap" -- Aug.-Sept. '01"We've responded to record-breaking income disparities by enacting a tax cut that will increase the wealth gap. The richest 1% of taxpayers will receive 38% of $1.34 trillion over ten years, while 34 million Americans will receive nothing.""Economist Robert Frank reports that the top one percent captured 70 percent of all earnings growth since the mid-1970's.""While the average worker's pay in 2000 was lower than in 1980, adjusting for inflation, CEO pay was 10 times higher."'Franklin Roosevelt's views about economic justice were considered so central to his presidency that they are carved in stone on his monument in Washington, D.C.:"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."'

quote:

---

If you earn 150k the government still takes half. a drop from 150 to 75 is a huge jump. That two percent has an even smaller percentage of those who earn 30 million dollars. that is an exaggerated claim.

---

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1227-06.htm"The higher one goes up the income scale, the greater the rate of capital accumulation. Economist Paul Krugman notes that not only have the top 20 percent grown more affluent compared with everyone below, the top 5 percent have grown richer compared with the next 15 percent. The top one percent have become richer compared with the next 4 percent. And the top 0.25 percent have grown richer than the next 0.75 percent. That top 0.25 owns more wealth than the other 99 percent combined. It has been estimated that if children's play blocks represented $1000 each, over 98 percent of us would have incomes represented by piles of blocks that went not more than a few yards off the ground, while the top one percent would stack many times higher than the Eiffel Tower."

quote:

---

If you earn 150k the government still takes half. a drop from 150 to 75 is a huge jump.

---

That's simply not true! Look at your 1040 form tax tables.Aside: At a place I worked once, they instituted a program of "furloughs" as a cost cutting measure. We stayed home, without pay, for one week in every eight. One of our secretaries, a single mother of four, one of them with Down's syndrome, was mildly complaining that 87.5% of her $7.50 an hour was making it awfully tight at home. One of the bosses told her that the $180,000 per year manager was hurt much worse than she was - he was losing more dollars.Back to taxes: we've already got a state lottery here in Texas - that's effectively a tax on the poor and those with poor mathematics skills. We don't need any more regressive taxes on the folks that actually do all the work to generate wealth for the rich.

I can see by the aside that you understand Winston's point, but just sticking to the numerical side of the issue, the top federal tax bracket is 39.6%, so federal taxes take approximately 40% of each incremental dollar above $60,000 after deductions, and then there's the social security taxes and the state taxes and for some of us the county and municipal taxes, so the total incremental bracket for all taxes is definitely above 50%. But social security taxes max out at some point around $70,000, after which you only pay medicare which is a much lower percentage, so it's not so bad as it could be, and certainly not so bad as to take half of $150,000.But 40-plus percent of all your additional income once you've passed the theshold is quite a bit! The origin of the current federal tax rate structure dates back to the Reagan tax cuts of his first administration. They were aiming for a flat tax, but in the end they passed a bill with two brackets: 28% and 33%. Having two rates was widely criticized by conservatives as the camel's nose that would eventually allow the top rate to creep up, but the liberals needed the rich to be pay more not only on an absolute scale but also on a percentage scale. Since the current rate is 39.6%, obviously those in the camel's nose camp were right.The reason for the bracket creep seems due to our being a math challenged nation. Each time there's a tax cut, which has to happen occasionally because inflation eventually pushes what were at one time subsistence incomes into higher tax brackets, the cut is criticized because it returns more to the rich than to the poor, so the higher brackets are always cut less, and so the percentage increases. I'm actually happy with the current top rate of 39.6%, because when the tax bill was passed I was certain it wouldn't be long before the original 33% top bracket was back over 50%. The top bracket has been at the same level for nearly a decade now, something that seems amazing to me.--Percy

quote:

---

Winston:
hmm.... still no replies.... that' what i thought.

---

Interesting - I said the same thing when you failed to explain whay in Jdean's silly rants I should have responded to 'better'...

"Did you know that wealthiest 2% pay for 60% percent of the taxes in this country?"Is this the same 2% that has 90% of the wealth?Did you know that in WWII the upper marginal tax rate was 90% and that Dubya is the first "president" in U.S. history that is trying to cut taxes in wartime?Bet Rush or Ollie don't mention that....

quote:

---

Aside: At a place I worked once, they instituted a program of "furloughs" as a cost cutting measure. We stayed home, without pay, for one week in every eight. One of our secretaries, a single mother of four, one of them with Down's syndrome, was mildly complaining that 87.5% of her $7.50 an hour was making it awfully tight at home. One of the bosses told her that the $180,000 per year manager was hurt much worse than she was - he was losing more dollars.

---

You have no idea how much it hurts to be able to spend only 3 weeks in Barbados instead of the 4 you had wanted to!Indeed.Think 'neural chassis.'In a discussion of brain size and intelligence (interstingly), Carl Sagan once pointed out that a certain amount of brain has to be devoted to doing everyday "housekeeping" stuff - monitoring homeostasis and such. And so, just because (if I remember correctly) the shrew has a relatively large brain to body weight ratio, it does not mean that it is more intelligent that a creature with a lesser ratio, because, being so small, a larger proportion of the brain - the 'neural chassis' - is devoted to these housekeeping duties.A substantially larger proportion of a minimum-wage earner's income is devoted to paying bills, rent, food, etc. than is the millionaire - or even the person making 150k.So yes, in a very real sense, less dollars taken out of a 'poor' person's sa;ary hurts more than more dollars being taken out of a wealthy person's.No matter what spin is put on it.They can take 50 - hell, 80% of Ken Lay's income - and he's still got it made by anyone's standards.I don't have anything against the wealthy, but I do have something against the wealthy that think they 'deserve' to be wealthier. If this were any other country, they wouldn't have what they do. It irks me that they often do not seem to get that. And it irks me more that these supposed "super patriots" on the right once voted to let billionaires renounce their citizenshipo to avoid paying taxes...

The question I am asking is: Is it fair? should those who are wealthy pay more because they have worked hard and achieved their social status? If we base our taxes on our level of success i believe we are moving towards a more socialist state. Why should the wealthy be forced to pay for the needs of the poorer?Capitalism is what this country was based on and self-sufficiency and bettering one's self through hard work.

Actually the top two percent of the world that has 90 % of the wealth are the western free nations and her citizens. Just goes to show you that capitalism is better than socialism. Communist and socialist states are not nearly as successful as we are in the free United States of America.

What is made? the issue of having enough money to live on or to live in luxury is irrelevent. They have worked to earn their money and the fact is is that it is still their money. Regardless the amount, the percentage takes huge chunks out of their income. If they do a job that earns their income, why should they have to pay the majority of the taxes.