The rich get richer

[campbelld]

One of many reasons I will be voting for Kerry is that I don't like seeing tax money fly out the window to the rich. The rich are much richer now than before Bush and the poor are poorer. Money is scarce for most and plentiful for a few. The big surprise is going to come when the poor majority have no money. The economy will collapse if 100,000 - 500,000 people hold all the money. What will poor people use to buy the shit at Wal-Mart that is made overseas by people making 30 cents an hour? At that time after the economy has collapsed, all the glorious money that Bush has been handing over to the corporations and CEOs who have no conscience will be worthless! We will all be on a level playing field again.

A perfect example is the abolition of the dividend tax. If I remember the figures correctly, 50% of this cut went to the top 1% of wage-earners in the US. Add in another 4% of the top wage-earners, and you have 75% of this tax cut which amounts to billions of dollars to the top 5% of US wage-earners! So, instead of spending those billions to reduce the cost of healthcare or to provide more federal money to education or even to fund the war (which was instead funded by our Social Security) , it will help to pad the pockets of people who aren't putting their money back into the economy, but are hoarding it in offshore bank accounts to avoid taxation. I personally think it is all an outrage.

[Ericnmel99]

I think you really should of included this in one of the other 2 John Kerry/George Bush threads that are going on right now.

http://cheapassgamer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20822
http://cheapassgamer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13581


I'd cut and paste your comments into one of those threads and have this one Locked.

[javeryh]

OMG. Why don't we just abolish money altogether and have everyone stand in line for bread? It will be so much better once the incentive to learn and develop new technologies and medicines is erased from society. At least I know I can sit on my ass all day and have everything I need handed to me without lifting a finger. Paradise.

[ex0]

edit:I'm staying out of political threads. I always read this wrong :P

[Tennisjon2002]

yea rich 4 life bitch!!!!!!

[mcwilliams132]

OMG. Why don't we just abolish money altogether and have everyone stand in line for bread? It will be so much better once the incentive to learn and develop new technologies and medicines is erased from society. At least I know I can sit on my ass all day and have everything I need handed to me without lifting a finger. Paradise.

Preach it my brotha!

If the "rich" have all the money...where the hell do you think all the tax dollars come from that get dolled out to the lazy asses as hand-outs?

Hmmmmm?

The rich in this country pay over 90% of the tax burden (it's actually higher than that - but I don'thave the exact figure)...obviously a tax cut goes to those WHO PAY TAXES!!!! If you don't pay in...you don't get anything back...simple as that.

Go cry on someone elses shoulder...society does not owe anybody anything...welcome to capitolism 101...get off your ass and work and make something of yourself. If not...live in squander.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

The original author of this post has as much reality based knowledge of economics and tax law as I do about quantum physics and hydrodynamics.

Which is to say.... I don't know shit about either one and neither does he. This isn't worth the 3 calories I just spent typing this.

[Cornfedwb]

To the OP..

A. Take an economics class before prediciting the crash of the American economy from whats helping the economy.

B. Do you understand the point & purpose of capitilasm?

[CTLesq]

GOOD.

Its time I got some of my money back.

[chickenhawk]

This isn't worth the 3 calories I just spent typing this.

lmao

:lol:

[AdamInPlaidum]

Hey, hey, listen to me! Listen to my political views! Almost everybody already knows who they are voting for, but I just thought I'd let you know who I'm voting for, just in case you are really gullible and will vote for whoever I tell you! Hey!

[Tromack]

To the OP..

A. Take an economics class before prediciting the crash of the American economy from whats helping the economy.

B. Do you understand the point & purpose of capitilasm?

I hate to get involved, but you need to follow your own advice. Every macroeconomics class I have ever taken has said time and time again, that a tax cut is the worst way to improve the economy.

[CTLesq]

To the OP..

A. Take an economics class before prediciting the crash of the American economy from whats helping the economy.

B. Do you understand the point & purpose of capitilasm?

I hate to get involved, but you need to follow your own advice. Every macroeconomics class I have ever taken has said time and time again, that a tax cut is the worst way to improve the economy.

Taught by people who benefit from the tenure system?

[Cornfedwb]

To the OP..

A. Take an economics class before prediciting the crash of the American economy from whats helping the economy.

B. Do you understand the point & purpose of capitilasm?

I hate to get involved, but you need to follow your own advice. Every macroeconomics class I have ever taken has said time and time again, that a tax cut is the worst way to improve the economy.

Re-read the original post, he's not saying taxes are going to crash the economy, and I never said a tax-cut was a good way to help the economy. OP implied the economy would crash because indigents would become even more poor and not shop at wal-mart anymore, thereby collapsing our economy.

Our economy's skeleton (and most of its flesh and blood) is built around large corporations and the rich. The poor don't move the economy much one way or another.

edit - Hey, I just noticed I hit Veteran today, woo go me.

[dtcarson]

Actually the economy itself was built around small business and farmers. Every big business was once a small business.
But as the businesses got bigger, they had their lawyers lobby for tax loopholes and 'exceptions' that fit only their industry/company/business whatever.
And of course now there are so many requirements and legislative hurdles in the way of the small business, 99 out of 100 fail because of the cost of compliance that is figured into their prices and overhead.
I agree there are way too many loopholes, and that's why they seem to 'benefit' the rich--because the 'rich' have the assets to take advantage of the loopholes, and have the money to hire lawyers/lobbyists to beg from politicians. Who then cave in and give away those exceptions. Which happens on both sides, R and D. Same thing with all those federal pork projects.
And a class may say that a tax cut doesn't help the economy, but there's a big difference between reality and theory, especially regarding something as complex as taxation/economics. Viz: Reagan's tax cuts in the 80's.
Dividend tax cuts affect those who can afford to invest in companies--which is another cornerstone of our economy. The 'poor' are so used to 'Here, have a little help since you can't do it yourself' and just enough help to keep them from starving but not enough so they can be independent, that they don't have the money to invest.

[Cornfedwb]

"Was built" and "is supported" are two very different things dtcarson. Small businesses do not support our economy, and haven't for 75+ years.

[Tromack]

To the OP..

A. Take an economics class before prediciting the crash of the American economy from whats helping the economy.

B. Do you understand the point & purpose of capitilasm?

I hate to get involved, but you need to follow your own advice. Every macroeconomics class I have ever taken has said time and time again, that a tax cut is the worst way to improve the economy.

Taught by people who benefit from the tenure system?

Um...yeah. I'm sorry that the school I go to, one of the top ten schools in the nation, has a tenure system. Just like every other damn school.

And Corn, I'm sorry. Your post was vague, and I thought that you were applauding the Bush tax cut.

[CTLesq]

To the OP..

A. Take an economics class before prediciting the crash of the American economy from whats helping the economy.

B. Do you understand the point & purpose of capitilasm?

I hate to get involved, but you need to follow your own advice. Every macroeconomics class I have ever taken has said time and time again, that a tax cut is the worst way to improve the economy.

Taught by people who benefit from the tenure system?

Um...yeah. I'm sorry that the school I go to, one of the top ten schools in the nation, has a tenure system. Just like every other damn school.

And Corn, I'm sorry. Your post was vague, and I thought that you were applauding the Bush tax cut.

Aren't you wonderful. Pass a bar exam and we will talk.

Do you fail to acknowledge you are being taught economics by people who profit from a system which does not reward competition?

By an extension of your logic if we had a tax rate of 100% everything would be ok with the economy?

[dtcarson]

http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbei02.pdf

Actually, according to numbers from Small Business Advocacy,
"Small firms represent about 99 percent of all employers, employ about half of the private sector workforce, and are responsible for about two-thirds to three-quarters of the new net jobs."
Granted this is a report from 2002, but the trends I'm sure are similar.

It's just that we hear about the big companies more, and certainly they can control and funnel more dollars through their businesses, but small businesses are still a core part of our economy.

[ryanbph]

I would love to know where some of you lefties get your information from...small business doesn't support the economy?? or Tax cuts are the worst way to help an economy? was this from your teachers mouth or from a text..a little bit of tweaking everything is the best way to run the economy, I don't think a 4% or so tax cut on someone paying 38% is really messing with the tax system

[Supernothing]

Get rich or die trying. I'm living a comfortable life with very little schooling after high school. I've had no hand me downs from the government and no help from the parents after I became an adult. If I can do it anyone can, most people are just to dumb to manage their money right.

[Cracka]

gay marriage

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Do I have a problem with Bush's tax cut? Yes, it didn't go far enough.

No American should be paying more than 1/3 of their income to the government. Let the government do without the way the rest of us do when we don't have the money. Let government bureaucrats sweat out a downsizing. Let them compete in the private sector. Let them wonder if they can meet COBRA payments between jobs so they have health care.

[Akuma]

Here's a stat for you; according to Harper's Bazzar in fiscal year 2000 Pepsi Co. paid zero dollars (yes $0) in federal taxes. The way the tax laws are written allow them to get away with such behavior and if they are doing it you know damn well that others are if for no other reason than to be able to compete. Big business is sticking it to middle and lower class Americans. Want an example? Let me pick one that is close to my heart.
In 1989 Sears, Roebuck was in the crapper. The top execs had run the company in the ground and the reasons why are debateable. So they decided to sell the biggest symbol of their prosperity, the Sears Tower. Today the Sears Tower does not belong to Sears and if I was the current owner I would change the name but the state of Illinois will not allow it because they don't want people checking into the sweet deal that Sears got on the taxpayer's backs. You see after the Sears Tower was sold Sears, Roebuck told Illinios that they were moving operations to either Texas or North Carolina and that meant Illinois would lose 6,000 jobs.
So the state cut a deal. For staying in Illnois Sears, Roebuck got a brand new central operations in Hoffman Estates (prime real estate) which cost Illinois taxpayers $280 million. This broke down as $178 million in local tax breaks, $61.1 million from the state for "site preperation", which meant that they just built the damn building for free along with the streets, sewers, and lights. And they also got $7 million in reduced sales and income tax.
As a thank you to the state four years later Sears, Roebuck fired 4,900 people in Illinois, not to mention that they fired 50,000 nation wide.
Was that legal? Absolutely! Was it right? Make up your own mind. This is not an isolated case either, there are hundreds of instances of large corporations pulling this sort of stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm no bleeding heart. I believe that you should earn what you get in life, I'm not of the mind set that more is never enough. On a practical level there must be an incentive for people to not only work but to do a good job. That's why we could never socialize health care, look at how the government runs the VA medical system. It one big black hole because there is no incentive for it to run smoothly and cleanly. But I digress.
Why should large companies get hand-outs for poor business practices? If I hand a small store, say a video game store, and I made some bad choices (I'm talking legit things like overstocking and hiring too many workers and not things like never bening at the store to manage or using capital for trips and drugs and junk) would the government bail me out? Hell no!
One more thing before this post gets any bigger. At the school I graduated from last year (Southern Illinois University at Carbondale) the administration was NOT giving tenure to professors and was in fact shifting more of the teaching burden to graduate students. I don't mind having some guy that is only two years ahead of me in his schooling teaching 100 or even 200 level courses but if I'm taking a 400 or 500 level course I expect a full blown prof. to be in front of the class. You pay full price no matter who is teaching the class.

If any one wants more examples of corporate welfare let me know and I can post or point you in the right direction.

Remember, you vote with your dollars.

[ZarathosNY]

OMG. Why don't we just abolish money altogether and have everyone stand in line for bread? It will be so much better once the incentive to learn and develop new technologies and medicines is erased from society. At least I know I can sit on my ass all day and have everything I need handed to me without lifting a finger. Paradise.

Preach it my brotha!

If the "rich" have all the money...where the hell do you think all the tax dollars come from that get dolled out to the lazy asses as hand-outs?

Hmmmmm?

The rich in this country pay over 90% of the tax burden (it's actually higher than that - but I don'thave the exact figure)...obviously a tax cut goes to those WHO PAY TAXES!!!! If you don't pay in...you don't get anything back...simple as that.

Go cry on someone elses shoulder...society does not owe anybody anything...welcome to capitolism 101...get off your ass and work and make something of yourself. If not...live in squander.


The heaviest tax burden falls on the lower and middle class. NOT the WEALTHY. If Bill Gates pays $300k in taxes, that is chump change to him. If a person making 25K pays $5K in taxes, who is the tax hurting more?

[PsyClerk]

gay marriage

Hey! Don't steal my schtick.

[dtcarson]

Thanks in part to Bush's tax cut, "Tax Freedom Day® in 2004 will be celebrated on April 11th, the earliest Tax Freedom Day for 37 years."
"an amazing 21 days earlier than in 2000, when the boom and bubble pushed tax burdens to a record high, and Tax Freedom Day was postponed until May 2 (see Figure 1)."
""Despite the dramatically lower tax burden in 2004, Americans will still spend more on taxes than they spend on food, clothing and medical care combined,""
"In 2004, Americans will work 65 days to afford their federal taxes and 36 more days to afford state and local taxes."
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html

Akuma: I don't think you'll find many people here who disagree with your saying the loopholes have gotten out of hand. Those aren't necessarily examples of 'corporate welfare', those are examples of corporations sending high paid lobbyists to make deals with their politicians who of course do what they can for votes or, ostensibly, to 'help the community'. If a deal is made, both sides need to stick to it. But we also need more politicos to have willpower, weigh the benefits/costs, and quit adding these loopholes.
Failing that, they need to tighten their checkbook rather than finding another pocket to pick.
What you are saying is not necessarily mutually exlusive with 'lower taxes/lower spending.'
And when I think 'corporate welfare', I think more of things like the repeated Amtrak or airline bailouts. If the company's not making money, it needs to tighten up or go under.

[CTLesq]

Here's a stat for you; according to Harper's Bazzar in fiscal year 2000 Pepsi Co. paid zero dollars (yes $0) in federal taxes. The way the tax laws are written allow them to get away with such behavior and if they are doing it you know damn well that others are if for no other reason than to be able to compete. Big business is sticking it to middle and lower class Americans. Want an example? Let me pick one that is close to my heart.
In 1989 Sears, Roebuck was in the crapper. The top execs had run the company in the ground and the reasons why are debateable. So they decided to sell the biggest symbol of their prosperity, the Sears Tower. Today the Sears Tower does not belong to Sears and if I was the current owner I would change the name but the state of Illinois will not allow it because they don't want people checking into the sweet deal that Sears got on the taxpayer's backs. You see after the Sears Tower was sold Sears, Roebuck told Illinios that they were moving operations to either Texas or North Carolina and that meant Illinois would lose 6,000 jobs.
So the state cut a deal. For staying in Illnois Sears, Roebuck got a brand new central operations in Hoffman Estates (prime real estate) which cost Illinois taxpayers $280 million. This broke down as $178 million in local tax breaks, $61.1 million from the state for "site preperation", which meant that they just built the damn building for free along with the streets, sewers, and lights. And they also got $7 million in reduced sales and income tax.
As a thank you to the state four years later Sears, Roebuck fired 4,900 people in Illinois, not to mention that they fired 50,000 nation wide.
Was that legal? Absolutely! Was it right? Make up your own mind. This is not an isolated case either, there are hundreds of instances of large corporations pulling this sort of stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm no bleeding heart. I believe that you should earn what you get in life, I'm not of the mind set that more is never enough. On a practical level there must be an incentive for people to not only work but to do a good job. That's why we could never socialize health care, look at how the government runs the VA medical system. It one big black hole because there is no incentive for it to run smoothly and cleanly. But I digress.
Why should large companies get hand-outs for poor business practices? If I hand a small store, say a video game store, and I made some bad choices (I'm talking legit things like overstocking and hiring too many workers and not things like never bening at the store to manage or using capital for trips and drugs and junk) would the government bail me out? Hell no!
One more thing before this post gets any bigger. At the school I graduated from last year (Southern Illinois University at Carbondale) the administration was NOT giving tenure to professors and was in fact shifting more of the teaching burden to graduate students. I don't mind having some guy that is only two years ahead of me in his schooling teaching 100 or even 200 level courses but if I'm taking a 400 or 500 level course I expect a full blown prof. to be in front of the class. You pay full price no matter who is teaching the class.

If any one wants more examples of corporate welfare let me know and I can post or point you in the right direction.

Remember, you vote with your dollars.

Funny Pepsi Co is a holding company.

Any other myths you would like to create?

[Akuma]

dtcarson: you're right, I'm mixing my arguments. I should have split them and argued both seperately. Thanks for calling me out.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

The heaviest tax burden falls on the lower and middle class. NOT the WEALTHY.

I hope you have Excel, this comes straight from the IRS site. 96% of the taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners. Not the middle and lower class. I hope your foot tasted good, you can take it out of your mouth now. (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls)

[CTLesq]

The heaviest tax burden falls on the lower and middle class. NOT the WEALTHY.

I hope you have Excel, this comes straight from the IRS site. 96% of the taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners. Not the middle and lower class. I hope your foot tasted good, you can take it out of your mouth now. (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls)

Can you provide the % the top 5% of wage earners pay?

[javeryh]

The heaviest tax burden falls on the lower and middle class. NOT the WEALTHY. If Bill Gates pays $300k in taxes, that is chump change to him. If a person making 25K pays $5K in taxes, who is the tax hurting more?

First of all, someone making $25,000 per year does not pay $5,000 in taxes. It's more like $3,400 which is only 13.6% of the annual salary. Not too bad if you ask me.

Second, life is not fair. Why should those "less burdened" by paying taxes have to pay more? Just because they can afford it? That's a real incentive to go out and earn to your full potential...

[ElwoodCuse]

The original author of this post has as much reality based knowledge of economics and tax law as I do about quantum physics and hydrodynamics.

Which is to say.... I don't know shit about either one and neither does he. This isn't worth the 3 calories I just spent typing this.

Then why did you type it? Has Zombie Ronald Reagan eaten your brain or something?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

These are of 2001. The last year the IRS has updated these statistics online.

in 2001 the Treasury collected $887 billion in federal income taxes from individuals. This was down from $980 in 2000. This is the effect of a recession on taxation.

The top 1% of wage earners paid $300.8 billion in income taxes or 33.9% of all Federal income tax.

The top 5% of wage earners paid $472.8 billion in income taxes or 53.3% of all Federal income tax.

The top 10% of all wage earners paid $576.2 billion in income tax or 70% of all Federal income tax.

[Lil Stinky]

These are of 2001. The last year the IRS has updated these statistics online.

in 2001 the Treasury collected $887 billion in federal income taxes from individuals. This was down from $980 in 2000. This is the effect of a recession on taxation.

The top 1% of wage earners paid $300.8 billion in income taxes or 33.9% of all Federal income tax.

The top 5% of wage earners paid $472.8 billion in income taxes or 53.3% of all Federal income tax.

The top 10% of all wage earners paid $576.2 billion in income tax or 70% of all Federal income tax.

I can see it now. I must get a Hillary avatar so I can be your fanatic liberal opposite.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You're arguing with IRS statistics. If you want to argue against government collections and paint me as a far right extremist that's your perrogative. Your credibility will be zero in everyone's mind but your own though.

[defender]

So much ignorance in one thread..it's a new low here at CAG.

I am against Gay Marriage anyways. :-)

[Graystone]

Did he talk about cheap games I'm sorry I fell asleep.
pssst pssst Ericnmel99 did you read it can I copy please.

[epobirs]

To the OP..

A. Take an economics class before prediciting the crash of the American economy from whats helping the economy.

B. Do you understand the point & purpose of capitilasm?

I hate to get involved, but you need to follow your own advice. Every macroeconomics class I have ever taken has said time and time again, that a tax cut is the worst way to improve the economy.

While actual practice has shown just the opposite. Way too much that appears MAc Ec. texts has never been tested in real life and is believed only by ivory tower academics and their victims.

[defender]

This is my favorite analogy for you to enjoy.


"This is a very simple way to understand the tax laws," says Professor Davies. "Read on, as it does make you think!" Here's his analogy:

"Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

the first four men, the poorest, would pay nothing;
the fifth would pay $1;
the sixth would pay $3;
the seventh would pay $7;
the eighth pays $12;
the ninth would pay $18;
and the tenth man, the richest, would pay $59.
"That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement --- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I am going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

"The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six--the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

"The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay:

as before, the first four men paid nothing;
now the fifth man also paid nothing;
the sixth man now paid $2;
the seventh paid $5;
the eighth man paid $9;
the ninth man paid $12;
leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

"But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20 reduction,' declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. 'But he got $7!'. 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man, 'I only saved a dollar too; it's unfair that he got seven times more than me!'

'"That's true,' shouted the seventh man, 'why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!. 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison, 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

"The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were now Fifty-Two Dollars short of paying the bill. Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists, and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

"Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic."

[bignick]

This is my favorite analogy for you to enjoy.


he truth about taxes.
DEFENDER FOR PRESIDENT!

[beguile]

PittsburghAfterDark wrote:
These are of 2001. The last year the IRS has updated these statistics online.

in 2001 the Treasury collected $887 billion in federal income taxes from individuals. This was down from $980 in 2000. This is the effect of a recession on taxation.

The top 1% of wage earners paid $300.8 billion in income taxes or 33.9% of all Federal income tax.

The top 5% of wage earners paid $472.8 billion in income taxes or 53.3% of all Federal income tax.

The top 10% of all wage earners paid $576.2 billion in income tax or 70% of all Federal income tax.
Am I blind or does this add up to 100% federal income tax? I did not know 33.9+53.3+70=100%. Sometimes statistics dont mean anything cause there's bias. Why wont you check out how many phoney spyware programs are on the web? And within those phoney spyware companies, look at their statistics to convince yourself they are not phoney.[/quote]

[bignick]

PittsburghAfterDark wrote:
These are of 2001. The last year the IRS has updated these statistics online.

in 2001 the Treasury collected $887 billion in federal income taxes from individuals. This was down from $980 in 2000. This is the effect of a recession on taxation.

The top 1% of wage earners paid $300.8 billion in income taxes or 33.9% of all Federal income tax.

The top 5% of wage earners paid $472.8 billion in income taxes or 53.3% of all Federal income tax.

The top 10% of all wage earners paid $576.2 billion in income tax or 70% of all Federal income tax.
Am I blind or does this add up to 100% federal income tax? I did not know 33.9+53.3+70=100%. Sometimes statistics dont mean anything cause there's bias. Why wont you check out how many phoney spyware programs are on the web? And within those phoney spyware companies, look at their statistics to convince yourself they are not phoney.[/quote]
I believe those figures are cumulative.

[beguile]

PittsburghAfterDark wrote:
These are of 2001. The last year the IRS has updated these statistics online.

in 2001 the Treasury collected $887 billion in federal income taxes from individuals. This was down from $980 in 2000. This is the effect of a recession on taxation.

The top 1% of wage earners paid $300.8 billion in income taxes or 33.9% of all Federal income tax.

The top 5% of wage earners paid $472.8 billion in income taxes or 53.3% of all Federal income tax.

The top 10% of all wage earners paid $576.2 billion in income tax or 70% of all Federal income tax.
Am I blind or does this add up to 100% federal income tax? I did not know 33.9+53.3+70=100%. Sometimes statistics dont mean anything cause there's bias. Why wont you check out how many phoney spyware programs are on the web? And within those phoney spyware companies, look at their statistics to convince yourself they are not phoney.
I believe those figures are cumulative.[/quote]

Those figures sound very ambigous to me. They can be so broad and they are not even accurate figures to make an argument convincing. What's the error ratio on that statistics (plus or minus over 50% percent)?

[bignick]

PittsburghAfterDark wrote:
These are of 2001. The last year the IRS has updated these statistics online.

in 2001 the Treasury collected $887 billion in federal income taxes from individuals. This was down from $980 in 2000. This is the effect of a recession on taxation.

The top 1% of wage earners paid $300.8 billion in income taxes or 33.9% of all Federal income tax.

The top 5% of wage earners paid $472.8 billion in income taxes or 53.3% of all Federal income tax.

The top 10% of all wage earners paid $576.2 billion in income tax or 70% of all Federal income tax.
Am I blind or does this add up to 100% federal income tax? I did not know 33.9+53.3+70=100%. Sometimes statistics dont mean anything cause there's bias. Why wont you check out how many phoney spyware programs are on the web? And within those phoney spyware companies, look at their statistics to convince yourself they are not phoney.
I believe those figures are cumulative.

Those figures sound very ambigous to me. They can be so broad and they are not even accurate figures to make an argument convincing. What's the error ratio on that statistics (plus or minus over 50% percent)?[/quote]

They seem reasonable to me.

[PsyClerk]

YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT!

Why?

BECAUSE...IT'S COMPLETELY DEVASTATING TO MY CASE!

Overruled.

[defender]

THose are figures you can get from the Government. They arent made up. This isnt a debate whether Bush is a good president or not. This is economics and simple math. FACTS people.

How dumb can you be to think these numbers are "ambigous"? They are the ACTUAL fucking figures.

It must suck to start a thread and then PROVEN wrong in front of everyone. What's your next thread? "AIDS doesn't really kill people". Cmon...get off your high horse and pretend to be normal.

[x0thedeadzone0x]

YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT!

Why?

BECAUSE...IT'S COMPLETELY DEVASTATING TO MY CASE!

Overruled.

GOOD CALL!

~ Jim Carrey Liar Liar quote. You sir are teh shit, and teh man. 8)

[PsyClerk]

Holy crap, I forgot the good call. Good...uh...call, on your part.

[x0thedeadzone0x]

Holy crap, I forgot the good call. Good...uh...call, on your part.

That's what happens when you see your favorite Jim Carrey movies 39 times and counting :shock:

Anyways it is not I which is good, but you. For you sir have watched Liar Liar, so I instantly give j0o more respect. :D 8)

[Akuma]

Here's a stat for you; according to Harper's Bazzar in fiscal year 2000 Pepsi Co. paid zero dollars (yes $0) in federal taxes. The way the tax laws are written allow them to get away with such behavior and if they are doing it you know damn well that others are if for no other reason than to be able to compete. Big business is sticking it to middle and lower class Americans. Want an example? Let me pick one that is close to my heart.
In 1989 Sears, Roebuck was in the crapper. The top execs had run the company in the ground and the reasons why are debateable. So they decided to sell the biggest symbol of their prosperity, the Sears Tower. Today the Sears Tower does not belong to Sears and if I was the current owner I would change the name but the state of Illinois will not allow it because they don't want people checking into the sweet deal that Sears got on the taxpayer's backs. You see after the Sears Tower was sold Sears, Roebuck told Illinios that they were moving operations to either Texas or North Carolina and that meant Illinois would lose 6,000 jobs.
So the state cut a deal. For staying in Illnois Sears, Roebuck got a brand new central operations in Hoffman Estates (prime real estate) which cost Illinois taxpayers $280 million. This broke down as $178 million in local tax breaks, $61.1 million from the state for "site preperation", which meant that they just built the damn building for free along with the streets, sewers, and lights. And they also got $7 million in reduced sales and income tax.
As a thank you to the state four years later Sears, Roebuck fired 4,900 people in Illinois, not to mention that they fired 50,000 nation wide.
Was that legal? Absolutely! Was it right? Make up your own mind. This is not an isolated case either, there are hundreds of instances of large corporations pulling this sort of stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm no bleeding heart. I believe that you should earn what you get in life, I'm not of the mind set that more is never enough. On a practical level there must be an incentive for people to not only work but to do a good job. That's why we could never socialize health care, look at how the government runs the VA medical system. It one big black hole because there is no incentive for it to run smoothly and cleanly. But I digress.
Why should large companies get hand-outs for poor business practices? If I hand a small store, say a video game store, and I made some bad choices (I'm talking legit things like overstocking and hiring too many workers and not things like never bening at the store to manage or using capital for trips and drugs and junk) would the government bail me out? Hell no!
One more thing before this post gets any bigger. At the school I graduated from last year (Southern Illinois University at Carbondale) the administration was NOT giving tenure to professors and was in fact shifting more of the teaching burden to graduate students. I don't mind having some guy that is only two years ahead of me in his schooling teaching 100 or even 200 level courses but if I'm taking a 400 or 500 level course I expect a full blown prof. to be in front of the class. You pay full price no matter who is teaching the class.

If any one wants more examples of corporate welfare let me know and I can post or point you in the right direction.

Remember, you vote with your dollars.

Funny Pepsi Co is a holding company.

Any other myths you would like to create?

Are you saying that holding companies can not and do not generate income or profits? Isn't "holding company" a fancy term for comglomerate or umbrella corp that manages other companies and/or brands? I'm not trying to come off as completely sarcastic, any real info would be welcome.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Holding companies are mere umbrellas. They don't have a true P&L they have operating divisions that operate as individual companies and a holding company is more or less a common bond between divisions.

For example with PepsiCo it owns Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC. Now all of those interests operate with seperate marketing, budgets, product development etc. Same is true of PepsiCo's other two best known brands, Pepsi and Frito Lay.

PepsiCo more or less has some accounting, legal and corporate functions but no true products. More or less it is like an owner with stakes in all the brands. It helps select management, boards of directors etc.

Think of it like this. if you owned 10% of GE, GM, Boeing, Coke and Microsoft you would in effect be a holding company. Would would have a say in management and seats on the boards of directors. However you would have no say in the day to day operations.

Now, it is entirely possible, and legal, for a holding company to show obscene profits in the hundreds of millions of dollars and not pay taxes. How? They're paper profits. For example if a company stock increases 200% but the stock is not sold but held, you can't tax that "profit" because it isn't realized. Simple way to explain it is you buy a stock at 50, it goes to 100, do you have 50 extra dollars? Only if you sell it. Now if the stock goes down to 70 and you sell you have a $20 profit. You get taxed on the 20, not the 50. That's why holding company profits are often illusory. Not only that but you can "flip" or "convert" profits from investments into tax free or tax deferred investments. All of which is perfectly legal.

Listen, I have 6 financial licenses. I could try and explain this all day long and still not explain it well. The books on these topics for testing study guides alone are over 1,000 pages. It's not as simple as some would like it to be. They just like the sound of "corporate giveaways" and "corporate welfare" when it's all perfectly above board.

I hope that helps.

[JAMMR]

Liar Liar was great...

Best part of the this thread so far, PsyClerk...

[Royale_w/Cheese]

I'm rich but very cheap when it comes to video games and restaurants. Hey, for $5, this is a very tasty burger

[defender]

Holding companies are mere umbrellas. They don't have a true P&L they have operating divisions that operate as individual companies and a holding company is more or less a common bond between divisions.

For example with PepsiCo it owns Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC. Now all of those interests operate with seperate marketing, budgets, product development etc. Same is true of PepsiCo's other two best known brands, Pepsi and Frito Lay.

PepsiCo more or less has some accounting, legal and corporate functions but no true products. More or less it is like an owner with stakes in all the brands. It helps select management, boards of directors etc.

Think of it like this. if you owned 10% of GE, GM, Boeing, Coke and Microsoft you would in effect be a holding company. Would would have a say in management and seats on the boards of directors. However you would have no say in the day to day operations.

Now, it is entirely possible, and legal, for a holding company to show obscene profits in the hundreds of millions of dollars and not pay taxes. How? They're paper profits. For example if a company stock increases 200% but the stock is not sold but held, you can't tax that "profit" because it isn't realized. Simple way to explain it is you buy a stock at 50, it goes to 100, do you have 50 extra dollars? Only if you sell it. Now if the stock goes down to 70 and you sell you have a $20 profit. You get taxed on the 20, not the 50. That's why holding company profits are often illusory. Not only that but you can "flip" or "convert" profits from investments into tax free or tax deferred investments. All of which is perfectly legal.

Listen, I have 6 financial licenses. I could try and explain this all day long and still not explain it well. The books on these topics for testing study guides alone are over 1,000 pages. It's not as simple as some would like it to be. They just like the sound of "corporate giveaways" and "corporate welfare" when it's all perfectly above board.

I hope that helps.

I think that you are speaking above a few here. If they believe that tax cuts hurt the poor then you are just wasting your breathe explaining. It's like trying to teach a bird to swim.

[PsyClerk]

Liar Liar was great...

Best part of the this thread so far, PsyClerk...

That's pretty sad, eh?

I say the best part is Defender's posts. ALL HAIL MIGHTY DEFENDER!

I swear I won't edit that once CheapyD comes back.

[beguile]

THose are figures you can get from the Government. They arent made up. This isnt a debate whether Bush is a good president or not. This is economics and simple math. FACTS people.

How dumb can you be to think these numbers are "ambigous"? They are the ACTUAL shaq-fuing figures.

It must suck to start a thread and then PROVEN wrong in front of everyone. What's your next thread? "AIDS doesn't really kill people". Cmon...get off your high horse and pretend to be normal.

I am not claiming they are false figures. But i am saying they are ambigous. Did you find out how they did the statisticis? How can they accurate measure that? What method of statistics did they use? Where they convenient measuring, random sampling, etc... Don't always believe the figures cause there's more than one way to distort it. Taxes can be counted in so many ways and some are left out. Did they included exclusions and exemptions?

Aids dont kill people... unhealty sex habits and life style kill people. Aids dont kill those that abstain from sex. Aids virus do not multiple in the air and affect everyone. Lastly, Magic Johnson is still living to this day. Furthermore, aids affect your immune system to combat other common viruses. Mostly, people die from common flu or fever... when they have aids so aids dont really kill people. Aids only hinder your immune system to fight other diseases or bacteria. Shaq Fu.

P.S. Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

[CTLesq]

Holding companies are mere umbrellas. They don't have a true P&L they have operating divisions that operate as individual companies and a holding company is more or less a common bond between divisions.

For example with PepsiCo it owns Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC. Now all of those interests operate with seperate marketing, budgets, product development etc. Same is true of PepsiCo's other two best known brands, Pepsi and Frito Lay.

PepsiCo more or less has some accounting, legal and corporate functions but no true products. More or less it is like an owner with stakes in all the brands. It helps select management, boards of directors etc.

Think of it like this. if you owned 10% of GE, GM, Boeing, Coke and Microsoft you would in effect be a holding company. Would would have a say in management and seats on the boards of directors. However you would have no say in the day to day operations.

Now, it is entirely possible, and legal, for a holding company to show obscene profits in the hundreds of millions of dollars and not pay taxes. How? They're paper profits. For example if a company stock increases 200% but the stock is not sold but held, you can't tax that "profit" because it isn't realized. Simple way to explain it is you buy a stock at 50, it goes to 100, do you have 50 extra dollars? Only if you sell it. Now if the stock goes down to 70 and you sell you have a $20 profit. You get taxed on the 20, not the 50. That's why holding company profits are often illusory. Not only that but you can "flip" or "convert" profits from investments into tax free or tax deferred investments. All of which is perfectly legal.

Listen, I have 6 financial licenses. I could try and explain this all day long and still not explain it well. The books on these topics for testing study guides alone are over 1,000 pages. It's not as simple as some would like it to be. They just like the sound of "corporate giveaways" and "corporate welfare" when it's all perfectly above board.

I hope that helps.

This is an excellent discussion on the matter. I would add the following.

A partnership or an LLC or an S-Corp does not pay tax. However, the proffits/losses of the above legal entities flwow through to the partners of those entities and tax is paid at that level.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Beguile they are NOT statistics. They are from the IRS themselves and represent actual tax returns. I linked them eariler in this thread but here they are again. This is no different than a restaurant owner organizing his receipts and discovering X amount of his customers bought wine, X amount of his customers bought pasts, fish, beef etc., that the average customer spent the most on Saturday's. It's not an estimate it is from past behavior.

Therefore in 2001 these numbers are dead on accurate.

Here is the link again for you. It will download an Excel file on every breakdown of tax receipts. Not estimates, receipts. They are not estimate they are the actual returns. (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls)

[epobirs]

eTHose are figures you can get from the Government. They arent made up. This isnt a debate whether Bush is a good president or not. This is economics and simple math. FACTS people.

How dumb can you be to think these numbers are "ambigous"? They are the ACTUAL shaq-fuing figures.

It must suck to start a thread and then PROVEN wrong in front of everyone. What's your next thread? "AIDS doesn't really kill people". Cmon...get off your high horse and pretend to be normal.

I am not claiming they are false figures. But i am saying they are ambigous. Did you find out how they did the statisticis? How can they accurate measure that? What method of statistics did they use? Where they convenient measuring, random sampling, etc... Don't always believe the figures cause there's more than one way to distort it. Taxes can be counted in so many ways and some are left out. Did they included exclusions and exemptions? .

You seem to have trouble following the thread here. These are figures produced by the IRS, a federal agency that has access to the federal tax data for the entire nation. This isn't statistical data when the sample size is 100% of possible data points. This is hard numbers. They aren't selecting a thousand returns at random and seeing what the distribution across the income brackets indicate. They don't need to. They know down to the last individual how many filers were in each bracket and the amounts paid. This is a massive amount of data, which is why the most recent year with detailed figures is 2001. Additionally, many returns aren't settled until long after the normal April 15 deadline and that causes another long delay in producing final figures for a given year.

Statistical analysis is a useful tool for when you can only obtain data from a subset of thew whole. When you have access to the entire potential data set this is no longer statistical analysis, it's just number crunching. In thing case the numbers are coming from hundreds of millions of data point but the solidity of the final figures remain.

[epobirs]

One of the common delusions at work here is the idea that wealth is a fixed value. That there is only so much wealth in all existence and someone can only have more by someone else having less. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The great majority of the world's wealth is the product of creativity and therefore limitless.

If you have a great idea for a simple arcade game and put it up on a website for download at $5 per customer and then after you've paid your hosting and other costs find you've got $100,000, where did all that new-found wealth come from? You didn't dig it out of the ground. You didn't grow it. You didn't hold people up at gunpoint and take it from them. Why did all those people give you money and make you wealthy? Because you created something new and desirable.

150 years ago oil leaking out of the ground was not only worthless, it was noxious. It could ruin farmland and cause various other annoyances. Until someone had the creativity to unlock the oil's value as an energy transport system. Then it became very valuable. It was the same oil it was before when it was worthless but now it was highly valued. Because someone figured out an application that everybody wanted.

[beguile]

Beguile they are NOT statistics. They are from the IRS themselves and represent actual tax returns. I linked them eariler in this thread but here they are again. This is no different than a restaurant owner organizing his receipts and discovering X amount of his customers bought wine, X amount of his customers bought pasts, fish, beef etc., that the average customer spent the most on Saturday's. It's not an estimate it is from past behavior.

Therefore in 2001 these numbers are dead on accurate.

Here is the link again for you. It will download an Excel file on every breakdown of tax receipts. Not estimates, receipts. They are not estimate they are the actual returns. (http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls)

So what's the numbers for low income tax payers or middle class tax payers. Do they have the numbers for those? Are they including all the information? What's the percentage for other income tax payers? Are they intentionally leaving it out? Sorry I dont have excel so I could not open it.

[PsyClerk]

The link provided only covers the top 50%. I imagine they don't break it down further because by the time they hit the top 50% of income brackets, they have covered 96% of the tax revenue. At least, that's how I deciphered it.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

That's the point PsyClerk and Beguile. The top 50% of tax payers pay 96% of all federal income tax. That means if you're earning less than $50,000 you might as well not be paying ANY income tax because you're not contributing enough to be worth while.

That's why I proposed that the first $45-50k of income be tax free. We'd be missing out on a whopping 4% of revenues from income taxes.

Politicians, especially those on the left, crying about the middle class squeeze? They're being disingenuous. They're flat out lying to you saying they should cut your taxes. Hell, you shouldn't be paying taxes because the sum total of the bottom 50% of tax payers is equal to a mere $35 billion. Call me crazy, but the goverment can do without $35 billion from the middle to lower middle classes.

Democrats have these numbers, Republicans have these numbers, this isn't rocket science. The thing is they want to screw with and manage that 4% of the income tax because that's where the "working people" vote is. They act like they're doing you a big favor when they're not. You're acting like slaves and you'be bought into their line of "fair taxation".

Let's say it costs $800 to process every tax return. Now we're talking the costs of weekly/bi-weekly payroll witholding, quarterly payments the employer makes in your name, year end W-2 processing, mailing, you filing on your own/accountant/H&R Block doing all your write offs, deductions etc, mail, IRS processing/data entry. $800 was spent to process a $100-$1,600 tax bill which isn't that out of line for lower/middle income people.

It's a waste. You might not as well paid ANY of it, it's far too inefficient so why bother. It cost the goverment/payroll services more to process your money than they got from your taxes. Meanwhile if you gave 65 million payroll workers ALL of their money back you'd have a bonanza for retail spending. Note: I'm just talking federal income tax here. Not SSI, not Medicaid/Medicare or state taxes.

Meanwhile you've bought into the notion that the government needs your money no matter what you make. You're willing to vote for politicians that say they're willing to cut your taxes because you're "working people". Don't you get it? The reality is they don't need your money, they never have. They're jerking you around for votes and you don't even realize it.

[defender]

THose are figures you can get from the Government. They arent made up. This isnt a debate whether Bush is a good president or not. This is economics and simple math. FACTS people.

How dumb can you be to think these numbers are "ambigous"? They are the ACTUAL shaq-fuing figures.

It must suck to start a thread and then PROVEN wrong in front of everyone. What's your next thread? "AIDS doesn't really kill people". Cmon...get off your high horse and pretend to be normal.

I am not claiming they are false figures. But i am saying they are ambigous. Did you find out how they did the statisticis? How can they accurate measure that? What method of statistics did they use? Where they convenient measuring, random sampling, etc... Don't always believe the figures cause there's more than one way to distort it. Taxes can be counted in so many ways and some are left out. Did they included exclusions and exemptions?

Aids dont kill people... unhealty sex habits and life style kill people. Aids dont kill those that abstain from sex. Aids virus do not multiple in the air and affect everyone. Lastly, Magic Johnson is still living to this day. Furthermore, aids affect your immune system to combat other common viruses. Mostly, people die from common flu or fever... when they have aids so aids dont really kill people. Aids only hinder your immune system to fight other diseases or bacteria. Shaq Fu.

OMG

Please pull your head out your butt and read this thread again.

[PsyClerk]

Hey...DON'T YELL AT ME. I was just clarifying.

[campbelld]

That's the point PsyClerk and Beguile. The top 50% of tax payers pay 96% of all federal income tax. That means if you're earning less than $50,000 you might as well not be paying ANY income tax because you're not contributing enough to be worth while.
So, since the social worker pays such a tiny percentage of the country's tax revenue in comparison to Tiger Woods, he is less valuable. I'm beginning to understand. It's good to know that my value to our society is gauged by how much I pay in taxes.

[campbelld]

OMG. Why don't we just abolish money altogether and have everyone stand in line for bread? It will be so much better once the incentive to learn and develop new technologies and medicines is erased from society. At least I know I can sit on my ass all day and have everything I need handed to me without lifting a finger. Paradise.

Preach it my brotha!

If the "rich" have all the money...where the hell do you think all the tax dollars come from that get dolled out to the lazy asses as hand-outs?

Hmmmmm?

The rich in this country pay over 90% of the tax burden (it's actually higher than that - but I don'thave the exact figure)...obviously a tax cut goes to those WHO PAY TAXES!!!! If you don't pay in...you don't get anything back...simple as that.

Go cry on someone elses shoulder...society does not owe anybody anything...welcome to capitolism 101...get off your ass and work and make something of yourself. If not...live in squander.
Actually, society owes everyone everything. Show me a society of one. A society is a group of people. What about the handicapped? Does society owe them nothing? I suppose they were chosed by god to have to overcome a physical or mental deficiency. If you don't want to live in a society in which people help and support each other, you should not live in a society at all. That's what a society is. An egoist would love to sweep these kinds of injustices that people are born into under the rug, but they do exist. Sure, there are people who take advantage of social programs. There are people who can work but don't. Is the program accountable for the actions of those who abuse it? No.

[epobirs]

That's the point PsyClerk and Beguile. The top 50% of tax payers pay 96% of all federal income tax. That means if you're earning less than $50,000 you might as well not be paying ANY income tax because you're not contributing enough to be worth while.
So, since the social worker pays such a tiny percentage of the country's tax revenue in comparison to Tiger Woods, he is less valuable. I'm beginning to understand. It's good to know that my value to our society is gauged by how much I pay in taxes.

If the measure is economic contributuion then that is exactly right. Get over it. Nobody uses this as their criterion of human activity. It can be very helpful for putting certain things in perspective. For instance, your activity may not directly generate high amounts of positive economic activity but if it ultimately results in a significant number of your clients making positive economic activity rather than negative there is a distinct payoff in that sense. In much the same way law enforcement operates primarily as a economic drain but its necessity in the face of the economy's collapse without dependable safety for those conducting their legal activities make it a critical expenditure.

[campbelld]

That's the point PsyClerk and Beguile. The top 50% of tax payers pay 96% of all federal income tax. That means if you're earning less than $50,000 you might as well not be paying ANY income tax because you're not contributing enough to be worth while.

That's why I proposed that the first $45-50k of income be tax free. We'd be missing out on a whopping 4% of revenues from income taxes.

Politicians, especially those on the left, crying about the middle class squeeze? They're being disingenuous. They're flat out lying to you saying they should cut your taxes. Hell, you shouldn't be paying taxes because the sum total of the bottom 50% of tax payers is equal to a mere $35 billion. Call me crazy, but the goverment can do without $35 billion from the middle to lower middle classes.

Democrats have these numbers, Republicans have these numbers, this isn't rocket science. The thing is they want to screw with and manage that 4% of the income tax because that's where the "working people" vote is. They act like they're doing you a big favor when they're not. You're acting like slaves and you'be bought into their line of "fair taxation".

Let's say it costs $800 to process every tax return. Now we're talking the costs of weekly/bi-weekly payroll witholding, quarterly payments the employer makes in your name, year end W-2 processing, mailing, you filing on your own/accountant/H&R Block doing all your write offs, deductions etc, mail, IRS processing/data entry. $800 was spent to process a $100-$1,600 tax bill which isn't that out of line for lower/middle income people.

It's a waste. You might not as well paid ANY of it, it's far too inefficient so why bother. It cost the goverment/payroll services more to process your money than they got from your taxes. Meanwhile if you gave 65 million payroll workers ALL of their money back you'd have a bonanza for retail spending. Note: I'm just talking federal income tax here. Not SSI, not Medicaid/Medicare or state taxes.

Meanwhile you've bought into the notion that the government needs your money no matter what you make. You're willing to vote for politicians that say they're willing to cut your taxes because you're "working people". Don't you get it? The reality is they don't need your money, they never have. They're jerking you around for votes and you don't even realize it.
I totally agree, but for a slightly different reason. Any resource has marginal diminishing returns. Here is a hypothetical situation: One person has no money, and another has $3,000. Each gain a $100 bill. Each bill has the same value in terms of the goods or services it can procure for the owner. However, the money is much more valuable to the person who began with zero than it is to the person who began with $3,000. Why not do some research to determine at which point the additional resources lose much of their value and begin taxing at that point? I'm sick of people arguing that higher taxes for the rich destroys motivation to succeed. If capital is your only motivation, you shouldn't be in your field. Would you rather be operated on by a doctor who is motivated by capital or one whose motivation is to help people?

[JohnHam]

WOOOO COMMUNISM

[epobirs]

I totally agree, but for a slightly different reason. Any resource has marginal diminishing returns. Here is a hypothetical situation: One person has no money, and another has $3,000. Each gain a $100 bill. Each bill has the same value in terms of the goods or services it can procure for the owner. However, the money is much more valuable to the person who began with zero than it is to the person who began with $3,000. Why not do some research to determine at which point the additional resources lose much of their value and begin taxing at that point? I'm sick of people arguing that higher taxes for the rich destroys motivation to succeed. If capital is your only motivation, you shouldn't be in your field. Would you rather be operated on by a doctor who is motivated by capital or one whose motivation is to help people?

That is a gross oversimplification. People are not so easily divided into categories of profitminded vs. charity minded. Keep in mind, the doctor who is well compensated and can afford to make continuing investment in improving his practice which in turn leads to stilll greater compansation is helping a lot more than a purely charity minded doctor who can barely afford to feed himself, nevermind having decent equipment.

[Indiana]

OMG. Why don't we just abolish money altogether and have everyone stand in line for bread? It will be so much better once the incentive to learn and develop new technologies and medicines is erased from society. At least I know I can sit on my ass all day and have everything I need handed to me without lifting a finger. Paradise.

Preach it my brotha!

If the "rich" have all the money...where the hell do you think all the tax dollars come from that get dolled out to the lazy asses as hand-outs?

Hmmmmm?

The rich in this country pay over 90% of the tax burden (it's actually higher than that - but I don'thave the exact figure)...obviously a tax cut goes to those WHO PAY TAXES!!!! If you don't pay in...you don't get anything back...simple as that.

Go cry on someone elses shoulder...society does not owe anybody anything...welcome to capitolism 101...get off your ass and work and make something of yourself. If not...live in squander.

YOUR NUMBERS are WRONG! The middle class pay the majority of the tax bill.

[Indiana]

The truth be told most corportations do not pay their taxes. They pay what they WANT to. Then they use their high priced lawyers to drag the government around wasting our tax dollars trying to figure out how to collect from these companies.

[campbelld]

This is the typical capitalist priority system at work. The economy is a means not an end. Not all social good is quantified by its impact on the GDP. That's our own fucked-up misconceptions. The benefit to humanity is the end.
That's the point PsyClerk and Beguile. The top 50% of tax payers pay 96% of all federal income tax. That means if you're earning less than $50,000 you might as well not be paying ANY income tax because you're not contributing enough to be worth while.
So, since the social worker pays such a tiny percentage of the country's tax revenue in comparison to Tiger Woods, he is less valuable. I'm beginning to understand. It's good to know that my value to our society is gauged by how much I pay in taxes.

If the measure is economic contributuion then that is exactly right. Get over it. Nobody uses this as their criterion of human activity. It can be very helpful for putting certain things in perspective. For instance, your activity may not directly generate high amounts of positive economic activity but if it ultimately results in a significant number of your clients making positive economic activity rather than negative there is a distinct payoff in that sense. In much the same way law enforcement operates primarily as a economic drain but its necessity in the face of the economy's collapse without dependable safety for those conducting their legal activities make it a critical expenditure.