And the rich get richer... by Niki2

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Sometimes I can't win for tryin.'

That's RWED's motto: You can't win for tryin'.

It is just like American politics. Bicker, bicker, bicker. It's a bicker party. Bring your own bicker.

I bring my own contribution to it, so I'm not saying I'm any better. Just sayin', that's the nature of this RWED beast. Bickering and Schadenfreude.

But sometimes, you find gems of insight. It's like mining. You have to wear protective gear, do a lot of work, and be very patient. But the payoff is worth it.

It's not much coming from me, but for what it's worth, you're a breath of fresh air in this here mine shaft, Anthony.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 1:50 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ouch. Et tu, Anthony? Okay, so be it.

Just like Mal4’s example of someone leaning across to address his table, yours doesn’t hold up for me either. We’re ALL standing around in a circle, nobody “came over”, unless you consider anyone who’s not already in the conversation as not part of the group, do you see?

And she didn’t say that. She summed up that we’ve had these conversations before and nobody seemed to come up with anything new...and again, we cheerfully ignore Whozit’s really nasty one liners; people ignore the truly ugly things others have said about conversations, why is this one so sensitive, I wonder? That’s not a snark, I’m truly confused, given how we’ve all reacted to people in other threads.

When asked if she had anything to contribute, she said “I started to” in another thread. I haven’t read that thread, so I don’t know if she was responding to the remark that she should contribute SOMETHING, or that she had contributed something TO THE TOPIC in the other thread, so I can’t judge that. I took it as the second, but I could be wrong. She only said “boring” about the conversation once, yet people are tossing around “point at others and mock”, “unproductive”, “mundane”, “pointless”, “lame”, “condescension”.

I never said you were being rude OR going off “half-cocked”, and I thought we worked that one out anyway. I’ve said over and over that it was my IMPRESSION and I might be wrong, as well, AND went on at least twice to say you were always civil and that my remarks never meant to ask you to be ANY different. You characterized all that quite differently in your example.

Quote:
Sometimes I can't win for tryin.' Sometimes it's like people only want you around 'cause there ain't enough cans to kick.

Maybe it's just me. I'll think about it. But I'm afraid to talk about it with anyone. Seems like a brand new way to have a new bad day, yannow?

But whatcha gonna do?

Yup, that’s my day all over. Mal4 tells me to fuck off, you characterize me as saying things I never said or intended, and Geezer has started dogging my posts to criticize me on a remark I made several threads ago about trying to say things that open conversations rather than conversation stoppers. I guess I’m today’s can, and from people I respect and am trying to communicate with honestly, rather than the usual trolls. What a day. Apparently you want me to “wilt away”, so I will accommodate you, unless someone has something else to say to me. I’m sorry I offended.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 2:25 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Niki,

Nobody cares much what a fool says. It's everyone else's opinion that matters. That's why what you say matters.

I can hardly get a conversation going lately that doesn't wind up being about how I communicate. Even after I thought we were done talking about how I communicate, you came 'round to tell me how snarky I am. So there I go, trying to paint a picture again. No avail. Et tu, Anthony?

Me too, I guess.

The funny thing is, I wasn't particularly emotionally roiled. I gently directed Kiki away from this unsatisfactory conversation that wasn't getting anywhere or producing original ideas. (Per Kiki.) Rather gently, I thought. T'was your critique about my snark that gave me a grimace.

Well, I won't pretend it isn't true. I am a low-down-dirty snarker. I have been known to use humor both dry and wet to make my point. Once I was even laconic.

I think it will be best to simply embrace it for the time being. I am not the better man. But I'm all right, I guess.

Thank you for holding up a mirror. I, too, am sorry if I offended. You Niki, or you Kiki, or even Motor Trend Editors and their manifold fans.

I'm afraid any impression I ever gave that I was any different or better than this was simply a shared illusion. Nothing more than the rosy hue seen through the spectacles of new love. Still, we should strive ever onward, even when we falter. Ideals are there for a reason, even when we know we'll never quite reach them. Keep me honest, Niki. I'll get over my frustration, and be a better friend to you in the future.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 4:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, this is how it works. You pay higher taxes on the next level of income, not on the whole thing.

I may be wrong, but I understood differently.

When my husband changed jobs and got a significantly larger salary, he got taxed a larger percentage of the WHOLE income, not a portion. When he changed back to a lower salary job, the percentage of the WHOLE income decreased. Our experience is consistent with the way it is described here, as far as I can tell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_bracket

I would appreciate clarification and corroboration, if possible. Thank you.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 5:03 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Well you know, I thought the same thing. But after Signy said what she said, I looked up the tax info they provide at work.

It seems that the charts I use to calculate income deductions for tax already account for some kind of scaled, gradiated approach to income.

But these individual tax amounts are averaged into a number, from what I can tell. This number does jump upon entering a new income level, but presumably does so because the average of all these income categories is higher.

Of course, I only learned this just today, embarrassingly. And, I am quite open to being wrong a second time.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 5:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Eh, no, I've been doing my taxes for years. I'm at the 38% tax bracket, but not ALL of my income is taxed at 38%! But here is the calculation:

Quote:
To take an example, suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000 in 2008 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:

($ 8,025 - 0 ) x .10 : $ 802.50
(32,550 - 8,025 ) x .1775 : 3,678.75
(65,725 - 32,550 ) x .25 : 8,293.75
(100,000 - 65,725 ) x .28 : 9,597.00
Total: $ 22,372.00

This puts you in the 28% tax bracket, since that's the highest rate applied to any of your income; but as a percentage of the whole $100,000, your tax is about 22.37%.

www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm

In fact, at the lowest level of income, you actually get some money back. It's called Earned Income Credit (EIC).

Having done my own taxes for years, I can tell you that the tax code unnecessarily complex. There are all kinds of deductions, gotchas, and credits. But if you want to know the REAL gorram kink in the tax structure, is that while people... average ordinary living, breathing, working entities ... are taxed on their gross income, corporations... those entirely fictitious constructs... are only taxed on their profits.... that is, whatever is left over from their expenses.

Now, keep in mind that expenses CAN include whopping bonuses and perks paid to higher-ups, as well as all kinds of "administrative" costs (eg the Jaguar sitting in the parking lot at the CEOs spot), depreciation (theoretical loss on the value of equipment and real estate), interest (which YOU can't deduct except for mortgage interest), in addition to regular operating expenses, and you can see why the big corporations hardly pay any taxes.

Hell, I wish I were taxed like a corporation! I could deduct my food, utilities, car, health care, credit card interest, education expenses... everything I needed to keep MY corporation going!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 5:10 PM

Ahhhh. Thank you, Signy and Anthony. After I posted, I realized I had missed Anthony's first post with those same numbers. Sorry to make you do it again. But I appreciate it.

ETA: I never do taxes. So my understanding has always been vague and fuzzy. This is good to know.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:10 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"average ordinary living, breathing, working entities ... are taxed on their gross income, corporations... those entirely fictitious constructs... are only taxed on their profits.... that is, whatever is left over from their expenses."

Hello,

This seems highly inequitable. It explains why I see so many materials at work from people who have businesses that seem to own all of their assets and don't seem to make any money.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Jongsstraw...

Quote:
Half of all jobs come from small businesses, and half of all small businesses fall into what Liberals call "the rich." As was stated above, "the rich" pay a huge chunk of the taxes in America, while 50% of Americans pay no Federal taxes at all. That is fundamentally unfair and socialistic, but it's also suicide for the country to keep driving "the rich" and their businesses and their jobs overseas.

There is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Small businesses don't take their business overseas. It's big businesses WITH the tax breaks that do. So tax breaks really don't help with keeping jobs at home.

I understand your point, and I sympathize with small businesses. But small businesses are taxed on their NET income. That means they can subtract depreciation, salaries, operating expenses etc
www.business.gov/manage/taxes/business-income/tax-deductions.html.

Real people don't have that option. So while I understand that small businesses have it tough, my heart doesn't exactly bleed for them either. The money they're being taxed on is leftover money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:29 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

RAPPY:

Quote:
That's not the proper function of government, to 'make things fair'. Dear lord... don't get me going down that road....

It ISN'T??? Then what was the point of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, rule of law, equal protection? Isn't THAT the function of government? To write the rules we all abide by, so that we don't live in a 'might makes right", random, violent nation? If making things fair isn't the function of this government, then for god's sakes what is??

Quote:
It's not tripe, Sig. Not even in the least. You hyper exaggerate the worst, and things from decades ago which no longer apply

Oh, because information was gained a few decades ago,it no longer applies? How about reading and writing? Hell, they were dreamed up millenia ago and yet STILL manage to be relevant!

Reality was never your thing, Rappy, so I don't expect you to be able to learn from the past... or even the present, for that matter. But dismissing knowledge on the basis that it is from before your birth is a foolish argument. Your argument would be far stronger if you could show HOW it was irrelevant. I'll be happy to hear the details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 7:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just one more thing, folks. Sometimes it's hard to imagine just how wealthy the wealthy really are. Professionals (such as myself), small business people etc really don't figure into the equation. We spend a lifetime scraping our dollars together, maybe manage to accumulate a few million, and we feel rich. But are we really?

Lets look at income in terms of stacks of $1000 bills. The 10-yard line covers the bottom 10% of the population. The stack is about 1/10 of an inch high. At the 50-yard line- half of the population is below the line and the other half above... the stack is about 1" high, roughly $50,000. At the 90-yard line, the stack is about a foot high. But at a fraction of an inch from the goal, the stack is 16 MILES high.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 3:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sometimes it's hard to imagine just how wealthy the wealthy really are.

I understand this.

But I also understand "wealth" is relative. Where in the wealth continuum do we draw the line for "too rich to deserve the riches"? Who decides?

It seems to me the standards are mostly seen as applying to "others" who are rich, not "ourselves."

I think whoever decides needs to understand the WE, probably every single person here on RWED, are part of the "wealthy." How do WE want to be treated?

The median wage in a small town in Peru is probably around $200 a month. For them, everyone in America is at the end of the football field.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 5:16 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"WE, probably every single person here on RWED, are part of the "wealthy.""

Hello,

If compared to the world at large, this is absolutely true.

And yet, it's not how I want to be treated that concerns me in this debate.

It's how I want to treat others.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 5:38 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
To Leftists, anyone who gained anything more than they have, or think anyone ' should' be able to , did so by cheating. Because it's how they'd do it, if they were motivated by such things as success and money.
Because they were REALLY motivated by the milk of human kindness??? Eh, that must explain child labor, company towns, brutal killing of labor leaders, rapacious monopolies, and grinding poverty for the many and opulence for the vanishingly few.

Really, Rappy. Do you really expect us to believe such tripe?

I only derailed this conversation from Anthony's legitimate (albeit misdirected IMHO) ethical conundrum to poke at your post. Back to our regularly scheduled program.

Speak for yourself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 5:49 AM

KANEMAN

This thread is not boring. Reading you assholes arguing with yourselves was hilarious, and for the record.....Nikki you should mind your own shit. Always Old Mother Hen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 6:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I understand this. But I also understand "wealth" is relative. Where in the wealth continuum do we draw the line for "too rich to deserve the riches"? Who decides?

It seems to me the standards are mostly seen as applying to "others" who are rich, not "ourselves." I think whoever decides needs to understand the WE, probably every single person here on RWED, are part of the "wealthy." How do WE want to be treated? The median wage in a small town in Peru is probably around $200 a month. For them, everyone in America is at the end of the football field.

Well, I think we've come to the heart of the problem: How do I (we) want to be treated?

Well, certainly not by a mob shouting KILL THE STINKING RICH! with pitchforks and flambeaux in-hand.

But believe it or not, I would truly not mind dividing my wealth downward. But there are a few caveats to that:

Not if the ultra-wealthy aren't part of the plan. Why do I want to share what little security I have with those even poorer than I, if that money just winds up on a conveyor belt into the stratosphere??? If the poor and the less-wealthy are made to share their crumbs, while the really really stinking rich don't have to get with the program? Like you, gorammit I want some equity to the plan! The way things work right now, most of our foreign aid is used to purchase arms and military equipment (keeping our military-industrial complex in cash) and most of the remainder flows right back to international corporations and banks, while some tinpot dictator who maintains slave-like conditions in his nation (in return for military assistance!) gets to keep a cut.

That means that the recipients have to have some basic safeguards in place. They have to be a democracy, with UN-certified elections, they have to have 80% adult literacy, they have to have a GINI better than 30.

The other thing is, I would want us to take care of our own house first: Anyone who is able and willing to work should be able to find a job at a livable wage. If corporations are so willing to take the credit for "creating" jobs, then they should get to it. And if they can't, they should be seen CLEARLY as the cause for LOST jobs. And we need to get out of the so-called "free trade" pacts. There are a lot of reasons why, but Ross Perot was absolutely right when he talked about "that giant sucking sound" being the sound of lost jobs. Once you're in a free-trade pact, you lose control over wages, environmental quality, etc because you're forced to compete at the bottom of the barrel for a handful of rice, because trade is strictly on price.

I have wondered for a long time why, when there is SO MUCH work to be done- bridges and roads and water mains and sewers and the electrical and telecom grid to repair, forests to replant and barrier islands to rebuild, people to mend and teach, green energy and conservation to invest in - why are people unemployed????

It's very very simple: Because businesses have no interest in keeping people working. In fact, it's exactly the opposite: businesses want to cut payroll as much as possible in order to make maximum profit.

Anyway, in Living Ethically thread Kiki makes the point that there is a purpose to profit, and it is a point that I've also made many times. IF all of a company's income goes to wages, if it spends everything that it makes, there is no "savings". SOME wages have to be retained, to save for people who are too young, too old or too sick to work; to invest in development, to save for a rainy day; to allow for multiple redundancies. The problem isn't with "profit" per se, but that an individual company's profit is linked to that individual company's growth, and not to the growth and security of society as a whole. My gut feeling... and this is a gut feeling, I have absolutely NO calculations to back this up... that with our current state of infrastructural, social, and environmental decay, we would need about 25% set-aside in a no-profit economy for at least 20 years to get back to where we were 40 years ago.

At some point, I should prolly pencil-whip those figures and see if I'm right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 6:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But believe it or not, I would truly not mind dividing my wealth downward.

Me neither.

If we want an egalitarian society, the rules for treating others should be the same rules for treating ourselves.

I would like these rules to be voluntary. I understand others disagree and want the rules to be legislated, which you all know I consider to be forceful/violent. Either way though, I think we agree on the same problem, just not the solution.

Quote:
Not if the ultra-wealthy aren't part of the plan. Why do I want to share what little security I have with those even poorer than I, if that money just winds up on a conveyor belt into the stratosphere???

If I may, I would venture that the "conveyor belt" is simply "employment." I would like to seriously consider an employment-free economy.

You want to build a factory, you build it yourself, or you build it with partners (who share the profit of the factory). Employment is just another word for neo-feudalism, in my view.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 7:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I agree. Ultimately, we should have a cooperative-based economy. But we still need some sort of medium of exchange.

One way to get "there" from "here" is to create a new currency, only for cooperatives. How about a a Nonbank International Credit Exchange? NICE, huh?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 7:24 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
One last note; someone somewhere mentioned that the rich pay something like 69% of taxes while they only earn 44% of income (the figures are what I recall).

What isn't considered in that is that if there are, to simplify, 10 people earning 44% of the income, and say 1,000 people earning the remaining 54% of the income, the figures don't show that the rich pay "most" of the taxes, they show that they pay the HIGHEST PERCENTAGE of taxes per person, it isn't taken into account how MANY people earn income or pay taxes.

The figures I've cited several times in this thread show that, for 2008, the top 10% of earners (that's about 14 million of 140 million tax returns filed) earned 45.77% of total income and paid 69.94% of ALL individual income tax.

By contrast, the bottom 50% (70 million tax return filers) earned 12.75% of income and paid 2.7% of all individual income tax.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Also consider that many in the bottom 50% also qualify for Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Care Credit, etc. which the top 10% can't get because they earn too much.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 9:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I also note that although corporations are taxed at a nominal 38%, that is of "net revenues". And because of all of the loopholes, many corporations pay no tax at all.

Also, buried in Geezer's statistics is that if you were to follow the tax rate in detail, through the top quintile, decile, centile, etc. you would see that the very VERY wealthy (the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets) pay at lower tax rate than I do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 12:12 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I agree. Ultimately, we should have a cooperative-based economy. But we still need some sort of medium of exchange.

One way to get "there" from "here" is to create a new currency, only for cooperatives. How about a a Nonbank International Credit Exchange? NICE, huh?

Hello,

I'm not clear on how creating a new currency helps the situation or averts any current problems.

I'm also not clear on how an employment-free society would work. If an old lady wants someone to mow her lawn, she oughta be able to hire them. And they oughta be able to be hired.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm also not clear on how an employment-free society would work. If an old lady wants someone to mow her lawn, she oughta be able to hire them. And they oughta be able to be hired.

By employment-free, I mean the lawnmower would be self-employed, trading completion of the job for money or goods. It is like actors being paid by the movie, rather than being "on the clock" for a studio. Actors get paid according to the earning power of their roles. The idea is that the worker should be able to negotiate some level of profit-sharing in a business per job rather than simply renting themselves out for a cheap fee.

Of course, I don't have it all figured out. I employ a nanny. She works during certain hours because with 3 kids, the work never ends; so I can't really pay her by the job. I'm not making any profit, so I don't have profit to share.

I think the underlying theme I'm reaching for is value and respect for workers as opposed to treating them like they are disposable. I dunno.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 12:51 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Also, buried in Geezer's statistics is that if you were to follow the tax rate in detail, through the top quintile, decile, centile, etc. you would see that the very VERY wealthy (the Bill Gates and Warren Buffets) pay at lower tax rate than I do.

Please dig that out for us. Cites would be appreciated, particularly those which show raw data from reputable folks rather than "The Rich Rip Us Off!!" sites.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 1:22 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

As Warren Buffett said

Quote:
Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece
Further:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_income_taxation.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 5:48 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
As Warren Buffett said...

Anecdotal, not statistics as you claimed you could show. Any evidence this is true?

Quote:
Further:

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/american_income_taxation.htm

Which also shows that the effective individual income tax rates for everyone have gone down since 1979, and also since 2000. Also shows that the lowest quintile get more than 50% of their income as "Transfer" income, which includes..."Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Low Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEA), veteran's compensation, workers compensation, and food stamps."

-"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 7:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
As Warren Buffett said... Signy

Anecdotal, not statistics as you claimed you could show. Any evidence this is true?-Geezer

I'm not quoting Joe the non-plumber here, Geezer. If anyone knows about money, it's Warren Buffett. BTW, Bill Gates and his father Bill Gates Sr.

Quote:
think that Washington State’s wealthiest should be taxed to help foot the state’s education and health-care costs

www.realchangenews.org/index.php/site/archives-blog/4922/

In any case, I DID provide statistics in my next citation, as you well know.

Quote:
Which also shows that the effective individual income tax rates for everyone have gone down since 1979, and also since 2000.

For the top 1% it went down from 90% tax rate under Eisenhower to roughly 28% current. For third quintile it went UP from roughly 12 % under Eisenhower to about 16% current (higher in-between).

The rich are paying a LOT less taxes than before, the middle class more than before. And during that time of high taxes, the American economy expanded tremendously.

All of which proves the original post. You asked for cites and I provided them. I'm not going to pursue this further with you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 27, 2010 7:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Tony, my time here has been fractured and I haven't had a chance to read back through all of the posts, but I feel that I may have missed some of your comments and questions. If I've missed something, can you please repost? I'm terribly sorry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2010 6:33 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

There must be a billion posts here, and even I probably don't know what all my questions were.

But perhaps a new, more focused topic?

Signy's society. How I would specifically structure a socioeconomic structure.

Then I can ask questions about how it works specifically, and wring my hands over personal freedoms as you pat my shoulder and assure me it's not that bad, really. ;-)

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 28, 2010 7:26 AM