dick, In that case, you just feel free to ignore my post as irrelevant to what you wished to discuss. Simple.
On Aug 1, 1:05 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > Because what you said and posted have absolutely nothing to do with the > subject of the posting in the first place. What you said and posted > have nothing to do with anything except nice to see the feds have a > percentage breakdown whatever that is worth. > > > > Hollywood wrote: > > dick, > > > I am not a representative or spokesperson of the DNC. I 've no idea > > why you would expect me to explain and/or defend what you claim is the > > "main thrust" of "the Dem arguement", whatever that means. The "Dem > > arguement" concerning what? > > Why don't you simply address what I said and/or posted? What is it I > > said you have a problem with? You have an arguement with the stats I > > posted? You have doubts about the accuracy? > > It's news to you that our tax code needs revision? You find it somehow > > odd that people who actually have money pay more taxes than those who > > don't? The govt; city, county, state and federal have ALWAYS looked at > > the citizen as an ATM. This is news to you? > > How many times must I tell you that I merely thought it was > > interesting? Assign any agenda or reason for my doing it that you wish > > to. > > > On Aug 1, 12:09 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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 -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
