an excellent read from the ACLU

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:30:26 GMT,
(GMAN) wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:09:59 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:17:09 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
news:rmvee7pg081j0oqkhc37tpef8nlqssp2pp@4ax. com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:41:46 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
wrote:

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"tony cooper" wrote in message
news Governments do the buying with taxpayers money, taxpayers rarely have
any
say in it.

The government employees who do the buying are, themselves,
taxpayers.
In fact, they are sharing the burden more than many since they are
employed - usually at rather good salaries

That's the problem, it's not their money they waste, and they usually
have
a
far better life style than many others.


and paying income taxes, property taxes, and taxes on purchases.

Which is why they love flat taxes so much. The old days of progressive
taxes
where those who could afford it actually paid more, are just about
gone
unfortunately. The new paradigm is the richer you are, the better the
accountant you can afford, shelf companies you can set up, family
trusts

you
can utilise, off shore tax havens you can register, and the less tax
you
actually pay. The tax burdon now falls almost entirely on the middle
class
and
poorest members of the community because they have no ability to
escape
it.

Trevor.

Your claim tha the burden falls on the middle class is wrong. 40% of
all
federal income taxes are paid by the top 1%, the top 5% pay over 70% of
all
federal income taxes, the top 10% pay over 80% of all federal income
taxes.

The validity of the claim depends on what you think "the burden"
means. If you consider that the group paying the highest percentage
of all income taxes paid has the burden, then the statement is wrong.
If you consider that the group paying out the highest percentage of
their income has the burden, then the statement is correct.

There's no obfuscating on this. The "rich" pay their fair share while the
bottom 50% of income earners pay zero federal income taxes. The top 10%
of
earners are shouldering the tax burden for 80% of the country. That is
quite
a
"burden" no matter how you try to spin it.

Speaking of spin...the original statement deals with the middle class.
What you have pointed out is that the *bottom* 50% of the wage earners
pay no taxes.

I pointed out a lot more than that and I'm not the one trying to spin this
one

Tony, you are.


That "pay zero federal income taxes" is spin.

The bottom 50% of the wage earners loan the government money for
twelve months of the year. If they're earning a wage, withholding is
taken out. They may get back part or all of that money as a refund,
but they don't have use of the money until the refund is received.

Also "spin" is "fair share".

If they get it all back, then they paid "NO" taxes!

Like most things in this area, it depends on your viewpoint. If you
loan someone $100 a month for twelve months, and then get that money
back in the thirteenth month, you are out of pocket from $100 to
$1,200 during the year. The person you loan the money to has the use
of that money for the twelve months.

And they have the choice to change the witholding amount. This is a crazy
argument you're trying to make.

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
If you get back that $100 that you sent in you paid zero.

How do you function in society if you don't understand the impact of
having your take-home pay reduced by $100 a month because you are
loaning someone else $100 a month even if you eventually get that
money back?

I've yet to meet one of these mythical workers who pays zero income tax in any
case. Over here you pay income tax on any income over $6,000, and it's pretty
hard to live on $6,000!
And that's STILL ignoring a hundred other taxes, levies, duties, excises,
surcharges etc. at federal state and local levels you still have to pay! :-(

Trevor.

Your "over here" is not the same as our "over here". It's a fact that almost
50% of earners in the USA do not pay any federal income taxes. In New York
State, 43% don't pay any state income tax.

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
That "pay zero federal income taxes" is spin.

Right.

The bottom 50% of the wage earners loan the government money for
twelve months of the year. If they're earning a wage, withholding is
taken out. They may get back part or all of that money as a refund,
but they don't have use of the money until the refund is received.

If you think a small percentage get back ALL of their income tax payments, let
alone 50%, I've got a harbour bridge I'd like to sell you! :-)
In fact it's more often the rich with the best accountants and miracle
accounting schemes that pay no income tax :-(

You are mistaken. It's the IRS stats that show almost 50% of the earners do not
pay federal income taxes. Look it up yourself unless you want to keep believing
the mistaken notion that it's only a small percentage.

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 13/12/2011 13:44, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
Per my last post. The top 1% pay over 40% of all federal income taxes, the
top
5% over 70% and te top 10% over 80%. You can take all of the money rich
people
have and it would not put a dent in the deficit because our federal
government
has an insatiable appetite to spend.

You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes paid

On available evidence he is too stupid to realise that!

Don't act so childish and start resorting to insults. You obvioulsy don't want
to engage in a discussion but would rather make insults.

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 13/12/2011 13:44, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...

"Pete wrote in message
...

Greece is in the state it's in because of government spending, overly
generous government benefits, lack of adequate tax collection,

Dead right there, just as the US would be OK *IF* they actually collected
taxes from the rich and big corporations.
It's certainly not the poor where most of the money went in either country!

Trevor.

Per my last post. The top 1% pay over 40% of all federal income taxes, the
top
5% over 70% and te top 10% over 80%. You can take all of the money rich
people
have and it would not put a dent in the deficit because our federal
government
has an insatiable appetite to spend.

You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes paid -
and that still assumes the highest earners do not cheat.

Nothing I stated is incorrect, if you have issue with that contact the IRS and
engage them - it's their statistics. I am not confusing anything.

See for example the graph of top US marginal rate of taxation 1916-2010 and
you can quickly understand why the US is near bankrupt now.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011...tes-1916-2010/

Or you can look at historical tax rates by income group

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007...-income-group/

Left as an excercise for the reader to compute the actual tax take from each
sector.

What is entirely certain is that your claim is total garbage.

The present US system is geared to making the already super rich elite with
influence who can bribe politicians ever richer.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

"Martin Brown" wrote:
On 13/12/2011 13:44, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:

Per my last post. The top 1% pay over 40% of all federal income taxes, the
top
5% over 70% and te top 10% over 80%. You can take all of the money rich
people
have and it would not put a dent in the deficit because our federal
government
has an insatiable appetite to spend.

You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes
paid - and that still assumes the highest earners do not cheat.

Even worse, he's wrong on the facts of the claim. The top 1% of income earners
in the US earn 24% of all income earned in the US. So you could run the
government quite nicely if you took all the rich folk's income.

Regardless of how much they earn, they pay 40% of all federal income taxes
collected. I am not wrong on those facts, despite what you have claimed.

The bottom 50%, on the other hand, earn so little money that you couldn't run
the government even if you took it all.

Again, whatever amount they earn does not change the fact that they don't pay
federal income taxes. Again, my statement was correct.

See for example the graph of top US marginal rate of taxation 1916-2010 and
you can quickly understand why the US is near bankrupt now.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011...tes-1916-2010/

Or you can look at historical tax rates by income group

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007...-income-group/

Left as an excercise for the reader to compute the actual tax take from each
sector.

What is entirely certain is that your claim is total garbage.

The present US system is geared to making the already super rich elite with
influence who can bribe politicians ever richer.

Exactly.

Simply returning high end tax rates to even GHWBush era levels would fix the
deficit instantly and easily. And simply dropping the cap on payroll taxes
would fix Social Security for ever.

Right! Do you really think that increasing the amount of money collected will
lower the deficit when the federal government is itching to spend more and more
money? Until we have a President and a majority in the Senate who are commited
to slashing spending it doesn't matter how much money they collect.

Medicare, however, is much much harder. (Making Medicare cover everyone and
charging a premium indexed to one's income tax payment would give us time to
work on the problems of medical care and costs. The stuff in PPACA other than
the insurance rules makes a good start on getting US medical costs under
control, though.)

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 15/12/2011 13:31, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
"David J. wrote in message
...

"Martin wrote:
On 13/12/2011 13:44, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:

Per my last post. The top 1% pay over 40% of all federal income taxes, the
top
5% over 70% and te top 10% over 80%. You can take all of the money rich
people
have and it would not put a dent in the deficit because our federal
government
has an insatiable appetite to spend.

You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes
paid - and that still assumes the highest earners do not cheat.

Even worse, he's wrong on the facts of the claim. The top 1% of income earners
in the US earn 24% of all income earned in the US. So you could run the
government quite nicely if you took all the rich folk's income.

Regardless of how much they earn, they pay 40% of all federal income taxes
collected. I am not wrong on those facts, despite what you have claimed.

You are absolutely clueless.

The bottom 50%, on the other hand, earn so little money that you couldn't run
the government even if you took it all.

Again, whatever amount they earn does not change the fact that they don't pay
federal income taxes. Again, my statement was correct.

See for example the graph of top US marginal rate of taxation 1916-2010 and
you can quickly understand why the US is near bankrupt now.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011...tes-1916-2010/

Or you can look at historical tax rates by income group

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007...-income-group/

Left as an excercise for the reader to compute the actual tax take from each
sector.

What is entirely certain is that your claim is total garbage.

The present US system is geared to making the already super rich elite with
influence who can bribe politicians ever richer.

Exactly.

Simply returning high end tax rates to even GHWBush era levels would fix the
deficit instantly and easily. And simply dropping the cap on payroll taxes
would fix Social Security for ever.

Right! Do you really think that increasing the amount of money collected will
lower the deficit when the federal government is itching to spend more and more
money? Until we have a President and a majority in the Senate who are commited
to slashing spending it doesn't matter how much money they collect.

A teapot party dumber than a rock nutter foams at the mouth again.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 15/12/2011 13:26, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
"Martin wrote in message
...
On 13/12/2011 13:44, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...

"Pete wrote in message
...

Greece is in the state it's in because of government spending, overly
generous government benefits, lack of adequate tax collection,

Dead right there, just as the US would be OK *IF* they actually collected
taxes from the rich and big corporations.
It's certainly not the poor where most of the money went in either country!

Trevor.

Per my last post. The top 1% pay over 40% of all federal income taxes, the
top
5% over 70% and te top 10% over 80%. You can take all of the money rich
people
have and it would not put a dent in the deficit because our federal
government
has an insatiable appetite to spend.

You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes paid -
and that still assumes the highest earners do not cheat.

Nothing I stated is incorrect, if you have issue with that contact the IRS and
engage them - it's their statistics. I am not confusing anything.

I deduce that you cannot read or comprehend the information then.
Lets see your evidence for this absurd claim!

See for example the graph of top US marginal rate of taxation 1916-2010 and
you can quickly understand why the US is near bankrupt now.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011...tes-1916-2010/

Or you can look at historical tax rates by income group

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007...-income-group/

Left as an excercise for the reader to compute the actual tax take from each
sector.

What is entirely certain is that your claim is total garbage.

The present US system is geared to making the already super rich elite with
influence who can bribe politicians ever richer.

Regards,
Martin Brown



Regards,
Martin Brown

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 15/12/2011 13:31, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
"David J. wrote in message
...

"Martin wrote:
On 13/12/2011 13:44, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:

Per my last post. The top 1% pay over 40% of all federal income taxes,
the
top
5% over 70% and te top 10% over 80%. You can take all of the money rich
people
have and it would not put a dent in the deficit because our federal
government
has an insatiable appetite to spend.

You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes
paid - and that still assumes the highest earners do not cheat.

Even worse, he's wrong on the facts of the claim. The top 1% of income
earners
in the US earn 24% of all income earned in the US. So you could run the
government quite nicely if you took all the rich folk's income.

Regardless of how much they earn, they pay 40% of all federal income taxes
collected. I am not wrong on those facts, despite what you have claimed.

You are absolutely clueless.

Perhaps you are. It's the IRS stats, not mine. If you have issue with those
stas, take it up with them. Have a good day and try being nice to one person
today, it might do your soul some good.

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:07:09 GMT,
(GMAN) wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:30:26 GMT,
(GMAN) wrote:

In article , tony cooper
wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:09:59 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
news:2jjfe7p05isf8q8vbo4mnk704i18qsclr2@4ax. com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:17:09 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
wrote:

"tony cooper" wrote in message
news:rmvee7pg081j0oqkhc37tpef8nlqssp2pp@4a x.com...
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:41:46 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
wrote:

"Trevor" wrote in message
...

"tony cooper" wrote in message
news Governments do the buying with taxpayers money, taxpayers rarely
have
any
say in it.

The government employees who do the buying are, themselves,
taxpayers.
In fact, they are sharing the burden more than many since they are
employed - usually at rather good salaries

That's the problem, it's not their money they waste, and they
usually
have
a
far better life style than many others.


and paying income taxes, property taxes, and taxes on purchases.

Which is why they love flat taxes so much. The old days of
progressive

taxes
where those who could afford it actually paid more, are just about
gone
unfortunately. The new paradigm is the richer you are, the better
the
accountant you can afford, shelf companies you can set up, family
trusts

you
can utilise, off shore tax havens you can register, and the less tax
you
actually pay. The tax burdon now falls almost entirely on the middle
class
and
poorest members of the community because they have no ability to
escape
it.

Trevor.

Your claim tha the burden falls on the middle class is wrong. 40% of
all
federal income taxes are paid by the top 1%, the top 5% pay over 70%
of
all
federal income taxes, the top 10% pay over 80% of all federal income
taxes.

The validity of the claim depends on what you think "the burden"
means. If you consider that the group paying the highest percentage
of all income taxes paid has the burden, then the statement is wrong.
If you consider that the group paying out the highest percentage of
their income has the burden, then the statement is correct.

There's no obfuscating on this. The "rich" pay their fair share while
the
bottom 50% of income earners pay zero federal income taxes. The top 10%
of
earners are shouldering the tax burden for 80% of the country. That is
quite
a
"burden" no matter how you try to spin it.

Speaking of spin...the original statement deals with the middle class.
What you have pointed out is that the *bottom* 50% of the wage earners
pay no taxes.

I pointed out a lot more than that and I'm not the one trying to spin this
one

Tony, you are.


That "pay zero federal income taxes" is spin.

The bottom 50% of the wage earners loan the government money for
twelve months of the year. If they're earning a wage, withholding is
taken out. They may get back part or all of that money as a refund,
but they don't have use of the money until the refund is received.

Also "spin" is "fair share".

If they get it all back, then they paid "NO" taxes!

Like most things in this area, it depends on your viewpoint. If you
loan someone $100 a month for twelve months, and then get that money
back in the thirteenth month, you are out of pocket from $100 to
$1,200 during the year. The person you loan the money to has the use
of that money for the twelve months.



If you get back that $100 that you sent in you paid zero.

Not so. You paid whatever interest you might have earned on the cash
stream as it accumulated over the year to $1200. The government
received a similar (although not necessarily identical) benefit.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

I'd sure like to know where on this earth one can deposit $100 into a bank and
get back $1200 at the end of the year.