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

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

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

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

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

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.

"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.

There used to be a saying "No taxation without representation."

Isn't it about time that the reverse was also true? People who don't pay
tax shouldn't have a vote.



Regards


Donal
--

So shouldn"t the wealthy pay a larger percentage?
"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

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?

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