On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:40:25 -0500, "The Carrolls"
wrote this crap:

So shouldn"t the wealthy pay a larger percentage?

No. Why should anyone pay a larger percentage?

BTW, when I walk into Hooters for lunch, I pay the same as anyone
else. they don't charge me more or less because of what I earn. Why
should taxes be any different? When I go shopping, nobody makes me
fill out a form based on my income, to determine what I should pay.
I'm charged the same as everyone else.

In fact, if they did charge me more, I would do my shopping in another
country.




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

The data I provided showed that's about what we have, except that it plateaus,
for the top 50% at 23% +/-.



"otnmbrd" wrote in message
k.net...


The Carrolls wrote:
So shouldn"t the wealthy pay a larger percentage?

Why? My Yearly income tax bill, exceeds the national median income.
Are you saying that because I went to school for most of my life, got
into an industry that has to pay well to keep me, worked my butt off and
continue to do so, pay top dollar for various insurance and licenses, am
not eligible for most government assistance programs due to my income,
receive no special treatment for day to day benefits of living in this
country, that I should pay a greater percentage of my salary for this
"privilege"?
BULLCHIT!!!!!!
Modified Flat Tax....Below a national median poverty level ....no tax;
poverty level to the median income level .... half tax; median income
level and above, 10% tax on gross CASH INCOME. EG let the games begin !

otn

Sorry Neal. You don't understand you own numbers. If you provided a link, I
could help you with it. But almost all IRS data that talks about tax revenue
includes cap gains and the other categories in the 1040 form as income.

If they didn't, it would just make my argument stronger, since someone living
off of cap gains will pay only 15%, while a salary earner is in a higher
bracket.

If you need help, ask Horvath - he seems to be one step ahead of you.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Need I remind you the figures in my post are from
the IRS and are applicable only to Federal Income
Tax? Capital gains tax is IN ADDITION TO Federal
Income Tax.

Lord you're dumb!

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Neal, you're proving you're almost as dumb as Horvath. The total tax paid
includes various components, including capital gains, which is 15%. The
Very
Wealthy pay roughly the same, as a percentage of income, as the upper middle
class.

So you're claiming that the people that make the most money pay the most in
taxes. That's a big revelation.

The discussion was about "fairness" and most people think the tax rate, or
percentage of income paid, is relevant to that discussion.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Let's not continue to cloud the issue when I've already
point out that's what you're doing.

Who pays taxes is answered by the dollars the government
receives from any group not the rates any group pays. The
dollar figures as percentage of the pie as listed in my post
are what determine the ACTUAL tax rates of a group.

Your claims go against reality.

The government spends dollars not rates.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Neal, you're proving you're almost as dumb as Horvath. The total tax paid
includes various components, including capital gains, which is 15%. The
Very
Wealthy pay roughly the same, as a percentage of income, as the upper middle
class.

I said a number of times that its true that the total amount paid by the
wealthy
is high - that's the numbers you posted. That is different from the tax
rate,
which is a percentage of income, including all taxes paid.

Its really telling that the two "arch conservatives" don't understand this
basic
stuff. It shows the kind of idiots the Republican myths appeal to.


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
It's a fact that the higher income group lives in a higher
percentage tax bracket. You are attempting to say it's
about the same 'rate' which it is not. Even more importantly,
what really matters is the dollar amount taken by the IRS
from various groups. The information I posted lists that
dollar amount as a percentage of the total pie. You are
doing voodoo economics and clouding the issue. This
is a typical liberal trick that is easily debunked with
the facts.

If you want the link where I got the stats go to Rush Limbaugh's
site.

S.Simon


"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
So where did I post any false information? In fact, many of you numbers
are
the
same as what I posted. I agree whole heartedly, that the lowest half
pay
very
little. BTW, this group includes retirees and, I believe, children, as
well
as
lots of poor folk. It probably also includes Neal.

I also agree that the very wealthy contribute a lot, though not the 90%
that
Horvath claimed.

However, you can also find on the IRS site, proof that after the most
recent
tax
cut, the very wealthy, (the top 1%) will pay only slightly more than the
upper
middle class, as a percentage of income. The effective tax rate for the
top
50%
is rather flat, with a peak at the 95% point.


BTW, you could have posted a link to you source. Here's one that I've
used:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03strudl.pdf



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Dear Group,

Jeff Morris is guilty of posting false information in
order to bolster his liberal ideas about taxation in this
country. I am getting sick and tired of his spreading
his lies around without anyone having the brains or
good sense to put him in his place among the other
liberals on the dung heap of failed politics. Therefore,
I shall do so. . . Into the dung heap with you, Jeff!

In the interest of providing the truth I did a wee bit
of research and came up with the truth in the way of
updated statistics for 2001 from the IRS.

This is the new data for 2001. The share of total income
taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in
2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just
wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average
tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.

The top 5% of wage earners paid 53.25% of all Federal
Income taxes. The top 10% paid 64.89% and the top
50% paid 96.03 percent of Federal Income taxes. It
follows that the bottom 50% paid only 3.97% of the
Federal Income taxes. In other words if there is to
be any tax cuts at all they must by the nature of the
tax code go primarily to those who pay taxes and
this is primarily those in the upper brackets as proven
by the statistics above.

This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues
from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock
market
crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the
sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more
taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to
lose more revenue from these people on the downside.
This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every
$100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid
by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are
the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like
"thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals
or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in
1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans
who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and
those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage
earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from
2000 figu 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down
from 2000 figu 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9%
(Down from 2000 figu 84.01%). The top 50% pay
96.03% (Down from 2000 figu 96.09%). The bottom
50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes.
The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal
income taxes than the bottom 50%.

And who earns what?
The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income.
The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10%
earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23%
(2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19%
(2000: 87.01%) of all the income.



I hope this helps!

S.Simon

Ok here is my answer. I am going to equate life styles to automobiles, as in
a frugal lifestyle is perhaps a Chevy, and a wealthy life style is a
Mercedes. I ask you which has the higher profit margine, and why? I contend
that our lifestyle is a type of purchase from our society, and the higher
quality should generate a higher profit margine from those who make it
available to us. A Mercedes E class has a higher profit margin than a Chevy
Cavilier, why, because it has more value to the purchaser. If those of us
who claim to be wealthy have a better quality of life, reletive to
ourselves, we should be happy to pay for that quality of life. That payment
is what gives it it's exclusivity, and makes it desireable to the holder. As
our government is the designer and enforcer of the slcial fabric of these
United States, it is the body to which we should gladly pay the debt our
lifestyle creates. If I have a Mercedes lifestyle, I will gladly pay for it.
This is not to say I am displeased with the taxes I pay, I would like a bit
more return in service, but the amount doesn't bother me.
"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Imagine YOU are wealthy and then ask yourself that
question. Answer honestly.

S.Simon


"The Carrolls" wrote in message
...
So shouldn"t the wealthy pay a larger percentage?

Read my post to Simple Simon. You get what you pay for. Live better pay more
than living poorly. I bet you live better than the national median. Why did
you use median any way, why not average? Only to skew your facts I think.
You pay insurance to protect your self, not me, you could be self insured.
Unless you are speaking of government insurance a program you mostlikely are
glad to have. Your licenses keep any joker from moving into your field
diluting the skills base, insuring lesser competition to you. Also you are
saying you worked harder than anyone who makes less than you? Were you
luckier than them, or better or privledged? Certianly there are government
programs you take advantage of, Highways, ADC keeps some poor slob from
becoming a thief and stealing your chit, the school you attended, law
enforcement that allowes you to conduct commerce in a civil environment. I
could go on, but am choosing to save ammunition for a rebuttal.
"otnmbrd" wrote in message
k.net...


The Carrolls wrote:
So shouldn"t the wealthy pay a larger percentage?

Why? My Yearly income tax bill, exceeds the national median income.
Are you saying that because I went to school for most of my life, got
into an industry that has to pay well to keep me, worked my butt off and
continue to do so, pay top dollar for various insurance and licenses, am
not eligible for most government assistance programs due to my income,
receive no special treatment for day to day benefits of living in this
country, that I should pay a greater percentage of my salary for this
"privilege"?
BULLCHIT!!!!!!
Modified Flat Tax....Below a national median poverty level ....no tax;
poverty level to the median income level .... half tax; median income
level and above, 10% tax on gross CASH INCOME. EG let the games begin !

otn

No you are correct, but if I go to Mac Donalds, do I pay more or less profit
margin to the store owner than you do at Hooters? I can choose to pay more
and go to Hooters, but perhaps I don't need or desire the quality, a choice
you too can make. By the way depending on your income, I will bet you pay a
much smaller percentage of your income than some people who partake at
Hooters. If you wish to pay less taxes, you can. Just choose a lifestyle
that generates less taxable income, why you could get to a level that pays
NO tax if you tried hard enough. As my dear old departed Dad used to say,
"It takes money to buy whiskey, more money for better whiskey."
"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:40:25 -0500, "The Carrolls"
wrote this crap:

So shouldn"t the wealthy pay a larger percentage?

No. Why should anyone pay a larger percentage?

BTW, when I walk into Hooters for lunch, I pay the same as anyone
else. they don't charge me more or less because of what I earn. Why
should taxes be any different? When I go shopping, nobody makes me
fill out a form based on my income, to determine what I should pay.
I'm charged the same as everyone else.

In fact, if they did charge me more, I would do my shopping in another
country.




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

Just to be fair, I do like most of what I have read about a flat tax.
"otnmbrd" wrote in message
k.net...


The Carrolls wrote:
So shouldn"t the wealthy pay a larger percentage?

Why? My Yearly income tax bill, exceeds the national median income.
Are you saying that because I went to school for most of my life, got
into an industry that has to pay well to keep me, worked my butt off and
continue to do so, pay top dollar for various insurance and licenses, am
not eligible for most government assistance programs due to my income,
receive no special treatment for day to day benefits of living in this
country, that I should pay a greater percentage of my salary for this
"privilege"?
BULLCHIT!!!!!!
Modified Flat Tax....Below a national median poverty level ....no tax;
poverty level to the median income level .... half tax; median income
level and above, 10% tax on gross CASH INCOME. EG let the games begin !

otn

Can we get back to sailing threads? This is a sailing group after all, I think. Correct me if I am wrong.

Jeff Morris wrote:
The data I provided showed that's about what we have, except that it plateaus,
for the top 50% at 23% +/-.

HUH? I haven't paid that small a percentage in years !!

An argument on taxes is like an argument about politics or religion
......useless. Until you go to the basic problem and solve that, you're
wasting your time.
The basic problem.... a government, peopled by politicians and
beauracracies which are not REQUIRED to balance a budget, act
responsibly, efficiently, etc.
We've got a government who's main job is "politics as per usual", that
solves every problem by creating more government to govern and oversee
the government and find new ways to create revenue that they can waste
in a politically correct fashion.
Down through history, governments of any and all kinds, have become
wasteful, inefficient and more interested in serving the interest of the
government, rather than the people they were/are supposed to serve, as
soon as they were allowed to attain any degree of power .... and being
as most people are sheep, wanting to be lead, this has and will always
be, easy.
The US is no different ...we gave up a government "of the people, by the
people, for the people", long ago (if it ever really existed). Political
arguments, regarding various problems we see, existing within the
government, be it taxes, health care, justice, etc., will bring about
little if any real solutions to the real basic problems, only bandaid
fixes, that will allow "government" to continue to muddle along as it
has and will..... you want to fix the problems we see in government
every day? Go after the real problem ... the outmoded, old fashion,
overblown government, that's the cause of those problems.


ROFLMAO ....sheesh, what a waste of net time, or whatever it's called
..... oh well, guess I'm allowed the occasional vent.

otn