Income Tax Data

[202typical]

Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data. "The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns." Remember this line every time you hear a liberal whine that the rich are not paying their fair share.

Read on

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










"dude, nothing we can say will make us like as childish/silly as the rants you post. We HAVE posted the parts, you chose to ignore them. We get it, you like soldiers that sell out their fellow soldiers for political gain, and you hate or hold in contempt those that take a stand. We get that you manage to see NOTHING but bad in Republicans, and nothing put pure and honorable intentions from fellow limp wristed libs. We got it already, now move on."
(PRO July 3, 2008)

 

[piper]

It shows you how we are becoming like a third world country, thats the way it is in 3rd world countrys a few people own most everything and pay most everything, sad to see America become like that

 

[overton]

Piper

I'd sure as hell hate to have a tormented soul as you seem to have. Do you ever have a good day? Maybe a change of scenery would do you well, I suggest Tahiti or someplace else with great beaches.


Ransom

 

[piper]

Its so nice here where I live in the summer, now winter is a different story, thats when I need to go to the tropics, I once had a girlfriend from the Cook Islands she used to talk a lot about Tahiti, last weekend I was up fishing for golden trout and glissading down snowbanks, 45 miles hiking backpacking in 3 days

 

[RELH]

Tahiti is too nice of a place for the likes of Piper. He would find something to b$tch about even living in paradise.

RELH

 

[NeMont]

Piper,

I don't believe the concentration of wealth is any different then at any other time in our history. Look at historical data from all major cities. In 1825 the top 10% in NYC and Boston owned 81% of all property. Even during the Roosevelt Administration the top 1% owned over 50% of the industrial capacity of this country. Look up the data.

In addition there has been trillions of dollars spent by the "War" on proverty with little to no effect on proverty rates. Explain how exactly a bigger tax on the most productive memebers of society in order to transfer to the "poor" results in a net gain for the country? The rich should pay their fair share of tax and at higher rates because they can afford it. That is fair, no issues there. Look at your candidate Social Security Proposal: Tax all those making over $250,000 on every dollar they make. Well a fair way to do is then to have means testing on the benefit side also. Why should a person making $250,000 a year have to pay more social security taxes but an elderly person with substantial assets continues to recieve SS? I know guys worth a couple of Million that get their $2,300 a month to golf with from SS. Wealth transfers are bad economic policy, almost always.

I am all for taking care of the least capable and our old people. If you are elder and poor you should be recieving substantial Social Security, Medicare and other benefits.

We are not a third world country, You must not have traveled to a third world country any time because our poor make their rich look poor. To be poor in America is nothing like being poor many other countries.

I am not saying we don't have a problem with our economy and our tax laws but be careful when you want to start a tax program to punish the rich for being successful.

Nemont

 

[piper]

NeMont, From what I have heard the wealthy have gained a lot from the modern economy and the middle class and lower have mostly just kept even, I guess thats arguable, but I sense that things have been getting better for the higher income folks and not so much for the rest, the old saying money makes money, its true, but when that concept is pushed too far its bad for the working class, there should be an encentive for people to work hard for the rich and poor and middle class, with taxes its a matter of the right balance, have you ever seen the movie, Enron - the smartest guys in the room? I have traveled to some very poor countrys, and maybe I exaggerate a little to get a rise out of some of these guys

 

[RELH]

Piper, you do not exaggerate a little, you exaggerate big time to the point of it being a outright falsehood. But, continue own, we have gotten use to liberals telling little white ones, and big ones also.

RELH

 

[overton]

RELH

I think piper is a McCoy. That would explain alot.


Ransom

 

[alsatian]

NeMont: It sounds like I may agree with much of what you say, so don't read me as beating up on you. I want to point out a premise or expectation of the social security system that seems to be missing from your discussion. Social security has always been promoted as a kind of government managed self-funded retirement program. If you don't pay into the system, you aren't eligible to take benefits out later. If you contribute more to the system, you are eligible for a greater benefit. If this system gets twisted around to just a needs-based public income supplement for old people, that is very different from the original charter and mission of social security. I'm not for that rechartering of social security. That would just be a new hidden tax and hidden give away.

 

[RELH]

Ransom;
Saying that Piper is a McCoy could be construed as an insult to the McCoy family. Besides our family signed a peace treaty with the Mccoys. We got to be nice. To the McCoys that is, not Piper, he is fair game.

RELH

 

[NeMont]

alsatian,

I agree with what you say about Social Security but it would be Obama's idea of taxing those making over $250,000 a year that breaks the orginal intent.

Why do you think there is a limit on the amount of earned that is subject to the Social Security tax? It is because that amount taxed income get the wage earner to the maximum benefit. It was deemed unfair to tax people on income above what the maximum social security benefit would be. That is fair to all paying into and collecting Social Security.

If you tax people for Social Security above what they can recieve back from the program that violates the intial intent as you state. Also Obama has means testing for income levels, those making between $108,000 and $249,999 do not have to pay additional taxes. So if you are going to means test on the tax paying side you should means test on the benefit side as well. If it is fair on the upside it should be fair on the down side.

Nemont

 

[MNHunter]

Nemont, SS will never be a means tested benefit. The Democrats would never allow it. The day SS becomes a means tested benefit is the day that the program will die. The reason SS has withstood and will always resist attempts by Repulicans to privatize it is because it is theoretically a benefit to every person who pays it. So long as it continues to be available to all it can't be dismantled. Once it becomes a means tested benefit, it is nothing more than welfare.... then make the scratch in its armor and the rust will take over.

"Whatever you are, be a good one."
- Abraham Lincoln

 

[overton]

RELH

Now I feel a little guilty besmirching the name McCoy.


Ransom

 

[NeMont]

MNHUNTER,

I didn't say privatize it. Social Security is really a giant Ponzi scheme, It is pay as you go, there is no account in your name growing interest. Even the so called "Trust Fund" is a joke as there is nothing in the fund but federal IOU's.

If anyone wants to keep Soc. Security solvent and take care of elderly and disabled you need to face some facts: The baby boomers are going overwhelm the system, There is a pig in the python demographically and partisan politics won't change that. Hard decision need to be made today or very soon or all those grand kids people are worried about because of GWB debt will be giving 40% of their incomes to their grand parents so they can collect Soc. Security.

Again I asked a question, please answer why the everyone agreed to a cap on the amount of income subject to Soc. Security tax?

Nemont

 

[MNHunter]

Nemont,
I didn't mean to imply you wanted to privatize it, my point is that so long as SS is not a means tested BENEFIT, it is practically bullet proof from ever being dismantled (as some people would like) or changed. Therefore, I don't think the Dems would ever allow it to be relegated to nothing more than a form of welfare. It would be too easy at that point for opponents to take it down.

Now, to your points, I agree with almost all you said. There is no money to pay for and changes will have to be made. One of the changes IMO you wil not see is changing the benefit to only those who "need" it (to my point above). They will however, eliminate caps on how much a person can pay in, age to collect, etc. As you alluded to above, these changes probably aren't "fair" but such is life. If anyone is counting on SS to retire, God help you. I think it will be around in one form or another but I won't stake my future on it.

"Whatever you are, be a good one."
- Abraham Lincoln