I don't think the fact that they are getting refunds should have anything to do with it. The main thrust of the Dem argument is that the people who are rich, either through their own efforts as most are these days or through the efforts of their ancestors, should be looked on as a Govt ATM even though it has been shown time and again that raising taxes means lower tax receipts. I guess they think if they keep doing it at some point they will change the result.
I still ask what is the point of your posting to the subject; surely it is of no interest to the conversation. It smacks of "don't look at what my right hand is doing, look over there" because you don't have a valid answer and you think obfuscation is better than silence. I think you also need to include in your 20% the fact that when Bush cut taxes, he also added a lot more people to the group who do not pay any taxes. That part of the tax cut equation seems to be missing from the liberal view of what happened. Now the lowest 40% pay no taxes at all except for SSA and FICA and those are for insurance. That the govt throws the money into the common pool and uses it to pay for all the other entitlement programs they dream up is beside the point of what that money is for. Hollywood wrote: > dick, > > Didn't claim it had anything to do with taxes paid. How can I be > "hiding" that what i posted has liitle to do with taxes paid/ Just > told you it didn't. So, what BS are you talking about? I simply posted > the states w/o any comment whatsoever. Didn't I? > > Just thought it was interesting to the converstion . Why so touchy? > > BTW,with approx. 20% of American families (of four) having an income > at or below the federal poverty level why would you find it terribly > surprising they are not paying much in taxes and are, in fact ,getting > refunds? Just curious. > > > > On Jul 31, 10:26 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What does that have to do with taxes paid. Nothing at all. That is >> what you are hiding. Throw some krep out there that has nada to do with >> taxes as if it were meaningful to the discussion and then sit back there >> and preen as if you really did something wonderful. Then you are amazed >> when someone calls you on your BS. >> >> >> >> Hollywood wrote: >> >>> dick, >>> >>> The information is from U.S. Census Bureau Table #673, the title of >>> said table is: Money Income of Families- Percent Distribution By >>> Income Level In Constant (2006) Dollars: 1980-2006. >>> >>> Not trying to hide anything. just presenting interesting facts. What >>> is it exactly that you accuse me of hiding? >>> >>> On Jul 31, 9:06 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I asked you about your figures, not mine. Mine were from taxables. >>>> What were yours and what were they in aid of. The percentages have >>>> absolutely nothing to do with the taxes paid by that percentage of the >>>> population which is what the whole question was about. You can try to >>>> hide the facts but they are still facts. The rich pay a whole lot >>>> higher proportion of the taxes than the poor do. >>>> >>>> Hollywood wrote: >>>> >>>>> dick, >>>>> >>>>> Simple enough question. Do you have the answer available or not? >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 31, 8:30 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Gross or taxable - and what does that prove exactly. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hollywood wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> dick, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stats from U.S. Cebsus Bureau, 2006 data taken >>>>>>> fromwww.census.gov/compendia/statab/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Distribution of Family Income/ Annual >>>>>>> >>>>>>> $100, 000 Plus.......................24.2% >>>>>>> $75-99,999.00........................13.5% >>>>>>> $50-74,999.00........................19.8% >>>>>>> $35-49,999.00........................14.5% >>>>>>> $25-34,999.00........................10.5% >>>>>>> $15-24,999.00........................09.2% >>>>>>> Under $15,000.00...................08.4% >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the year 2006 the official poverty level would be $20,614.00 for a >>>>>>> family of four. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 31, 4:54 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here's the share of income by quintile. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bottom 20% Households: 3.4% >>>>>>>> Next 20%: 8.6 >>>>>>>> Middle 20%: 14.5 >>>>>>>> Next 20%: 22.9 >>>>>>>> Top 20%: 50.5% >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For interest: top 5% earns 22% >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Keep in mind that richer households are larger --- an average of 3.1 >>>>>>>> people in the top fifth, compared with 2.5 people in the middle fifth >>>>>>>> and 1.7 in the bottom fifth. So the smaller household almost by >>>>>>>> definition will make less - because fewer people are working. Can't >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> two incomes if there are only 1.7 people.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now let's look at percentage of taxes paid: >>>>>>>> Bottom 20%: 0.8 (all federal) and -2.8 (income - they got $ back) >>>>>>>> Next 20%: 4.1 and -0.8 (they also got $ back) >>>>>>>> Middle 20%: 9.1 and 4.4 >>>>>>>> Next 20%: 16.5 and 12.9 >>>>>>>> Top 20%: 69.3 and 86.3% >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No matter how you slice it, the US tax code is steeply progressive, >>>>>>>> taxes any dollar that a two-income household earns more heavily than a >>>>>>>> one-income household, penalizes extra effort, and gives back far more >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> low income households than it takes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Posted by: orthodoc | July 31, 2009 at 01:31 PM >>>>>>>> <http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/07/now-they-are-irritating...>- >>>>>>>> Hide quoted text - >>>>>>>> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>>>>> >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >>>> >> - Show quoted text - >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
