Amazon 7 #76 August 23, 2011 QuoteRepublicans wanted to take SS to Wall Street in 2007. Making their pals even wealthier while leaving the retirees to hold the goo end of the stick. They still do... just think how well the top .1% could do with that amount of money to loot from Americans... We are going thru the largest transfer of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street.. the the bought and paid for rePUBIClowns want more of the same for their masters... as long as they get a bit of trickle from them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #77 August 23, 2011 YOU ARE ALL SO DOOOOMED!!! i feel sorry for you kids..“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #78 August 23, 2011 QuoteHey Dubya how did all those jobs and all that economic growth work out for us. In 2000, the 15-20k wage group paid 0.94% of all income tax collected. In 2009 after the Bush cuts, the same wage group paid 0.29%. In 2000, the 200-500k group paid 14.93%. In 2009, 20.36%. The last Republican budget (FY 2007) had a 163B deficit. The first Dem budget (FY 2008) had a 438B deficit and we all know where it went after the One was elected.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #79 August 23, 2011 Quote In 2000, the 15-20k wage group paid 0.94% of all income tax collected. In 2009 after the Bush cuts, the same wage group paid 0.29%. In 2000, the 200-500k group paid 14.93%. In 2009, 20.36%. No shit, why do you suppose that is? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #80 August 23, 2011 QuoteQuote In 2000, the 15-20k wage group paid 0.94% of all income tax collected. In 2009 after the Bush cuts, the same wage group paid 0.29%. In 2000, the 200-500k group paid 14.93%. In 2009, 20.36%. No shit, why do you suppose that is? Because the cuts shifted the tax burden upward.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #81 August 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteHey Dubya how did all those jobs and all that economic growth work out for us. In 2000, the 15-20k wage group paid 0.94% of all income tax collected. In 2009 after the Bush cuts, the same wage group paid 0.29%. In 2000, the 200-500k group paid 14.93%. In 2009, 20.36%. The last Republican budget (FY 2007) had a 163B deficit. The first Dem budget (FY 2008) had a 438B deficit and we all know where it went after the One was elected. Gee did that include your hero's off the books war??? Seems this president had to put it on the books.. funni dat.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #82 August 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteHey Dubya how did all those jobs and all that economic growth work out for us. In 2000, the 15-20k wage group paid 0.94% of all income tax collected. In 2009 after the Bush cuts, the same wage group paid 0.29%. In 2000, the 200-500k group paid 14.93%. In 2009, 20.36%. The last Republican budget (FY 2007) had a 163B deficit. The first Dem budget (FY 2008) had a 438B deficit and we all know where it went after the One was elected. Gee did that include your hero's off the books war??? Appropriations bills are included in the figuring, so yes, it did include them.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #83 August 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote*** In 2000, the 15-20k wage group paid 0.94% of all income tax collected. In 2009 after the Bush cuts, the same wage group paid 0.29%. In 2000, the 200-500k group paid 14.93%. In 2009, 20.36%. No shit, why do you suppose that is? Because the cuts shifted the tax burden upward. Using your stats, the rich had to make up about 5%. The one group you failed to mention was the middle class. In those same years, the employment rate nose dived, wages stagnated or declined, and jobs were shipped overseas. The middle class has also been in a steep decline. Do you think that could have been a factor? And where did you come up with your stats? How would you spin this? http://westorlandonews.com/2011/08/04/budget-deal-a-boon-for-the-rich-bad-for-americas-middle-class/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #84 August 23, 2011 QuoteUsing your stats, the rich had to make up about 5%. Define 'the rich'. QuoteThe one group you failed to mention was the middle class. Define the 'middle class'. QuoteIn those same years, the employment rate nose dived, wages stagnated or declined, and jobs were shipped overseas. The middle class has also been in a steep decline. Do you think that could have been a factor? Given that I'm breaking them down within their own cohort - nope. QuoteAnd where did you come up with your stats? The IRS. QuoteHow would you spin this? http://westorlandonews.com/2011/08/04/budget-deal-a-boon-for-the-rich-bad-for-americas-middle-class/ I don't need to, they're spinning enough as it is.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #85 August 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteUsing your stats, the rich had to make up about 5%. Define 'the rich'. QuoteThe one group you failed to mention was the middle class. Define the 'middle class'. QuoteIn those same years, the employment rate nose dived, wages stagnated or declined, and jobs were shipped overseas. The middle class has also been in a steep decline. Do you think that could have been a factor? Given that I'm breaking them down within their own cohort - nope. QuoteAnd where did you come up with your stats? The IRS. QuoteHow would you spin this? http://westorlandonews.com/2011/08/04/budget-deal-a-boon-for-the-rich-bad-for-americas-middle-class/ I don't need to, they're spinning enough as it is. Rich? the top 1% of wage earners. The middle class? between $30,000 and a $125,000 Cohort? you never mentioned anything about the middle class, the largest group in the US, you left out the stats for between $20,000 and $200,000. Why not mention the middle class? Please share your IRS link, there must be a reason you did not post it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #86 August 23, 2011 QuoteRich? the top 1% of wage earners. Ok. For 2000, the 500k+ filers are 0.49% of the total filers and in 2009, .52%. Going lower than that bumps the number up over 2%. For 2000, the 500k+ group paid 30.83% of the total taxes (group averages 99.9% taxed) and in 2009, 29.79% of the total taxes (group averages 99.38% taxed). QuoteThe middle class? between $30,000 and a $125,000 The breakdown goes up to 100, then jumps to 100-200k. $1-5k: For 2000, 0.03% of total taxes (17.96% of group taxed). For 2009, .005% of total taxes (2.93% of group taxed). 5-10k: For 2000, 0.19% of total taxes (43.21% of group taxed). For 2009, 0.04% of total taxes (15.54% of group taxed). 10-15k: For 2000, 0.53% of total taxes (57.2% of group taxed). For 2009, 0.1% of total taxes (23.17% of group taxed). 15-20k: For 2000, 0.94% of total taxes (64.73% of group taxed). For 2009, 0.29% of total taxes (42.7% of group taxed). 20-25k: For 2000, 1.34% of total taxes (75.71% of group taxed). For 2009, 0.54% of total taxes (46.23% of group taxed). 30-40k: For 2000, 4.1% of total taxes (95.98% of group taxed). For 2009, 2.33% of total taxes (66.73% of group taxed). 40-50k: For 2000, 4.66% of total taxes (98.45% of group taxed). For 2009, 2.93% of total taxes (77.63% of group taxed). 50-75k: For 2000, 11.8% of total taxes (99.32% of group taxed). For 2009, 9% of total taxes (87.99% of group taxed). 75-100k: For 2000, 10.81% of total taxes (43.21% of group taxed). For 2009, 9.3% of total taxes (15.54% of group taxed). 100-200k: For 2000, 18.77% of total taxes (99.93% of group taxed). For 2009, 24.52% of total taxes (98.91% of group taxed). 200-500k: For 2000, 14.93% of total taxes (99.92% of group taxed). For 2009, 20.36% of total taxes (99.48% of group taxed). As you can see, the shift to the higher levels started kicking in at the 100-200k bracket. QuotePlease share your IRS link, there must be a reason you did not post it. Google SOI tax stats - hope you're good with excel.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #87 August 23, 2011 Quote Please get it right... its 6 boats over 20 feet but only 2 over 30 feet.. but I earned my money... AND PAID TAXES on it. Does this mean your sob story about losing half your 401k during the 2008 dive was a farce? Or did you buy the boats when you cashed out? How many personalities you got in there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #88 August 23, 2011 1. You missed the ultra rich, 2. No adjustment for inflation. 3. no adjustment for demographic changes. Your numbers are meaningless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #89 August 23, 2011 Quote But if you take the entire worth of the bottom 50% of americans, that amounts to 1.5 trillion dollars. The FEDERAL government runs a pne-year deficit that is equal to the worth of half of all Americans. But it's a matter of not taxing the rich enough??? Huh? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #90 August 23, 2011 QuoteQuote Please get it right... its 6 boats over 20 feet but only 2 over 30 feet.. but I earned my money... AND PAID TAXES on it. Does this mean your sob story about losing half your 401k during the 2008 dive was a farce? Or did you buy the boats when you cashed out? How many personalities you got in there? How many do you have??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #91 August 23, 2011 Quote1. You missed the ultra rich,[/repl] Last time I looked, 500k+ included....*gasp*... EVERYONE above 500k, which would also include the ultra rich. Quote2. No adjustment for inflation. Not comparing dollars year to year. Quote3. no adjustment for demographic changes. Not comparing to population at large, but against the total number of returns for the year. QuoteYour numbers are meaningless. Your weaseling is useless.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,113 #92 August 23, 2011 At least they are becoming willing to compromise, and are starting to realize that we have to cut spending AND raise taxes. Now they just have to get over their ideological fears of taxing rich people as well as poor ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #93 August 23, 2011 QuoteAt least they are becoming willing to compromise, and are starting to realize that we have to cut spending AND raise taxes. Now they just have to get over their ideological fears of taxing rich people as well as poor ones. Would you please share the competing plans against which a compromise can be viewed? At least that way we can know what the Dems compromised"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #94 August 23, 2011 QuoteQuote1. You missed the ultra rich,[/repl] Last time I looked, 500k+ included....*gasp*... EVERYONE above 500k, which would also include the ultra rich. Quote2. No adjustment for inflation. Not comparing dollars year to year. Quote3. no adjustment for demographic changes. Not comparing to population at large, but against the total number of returns for the year. QuoteYour numbers are meaningless. Your weaseling is useless. So the ultra-rich are not separated out from the merely rich, and you admit that the effects of inflation and demographics are excluded. I didn't claim that your figures were incorrect. Your figures ARE simply meaningless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #95 August 23, 2011 QuoteSo the ultra-rich are not separated out from the merely rich You must have missed where he ASKED for the top 1%. Sucks to be your attempt to distract. Quoteand you admit that the effects of inflation and demographics are excluded. And you REFUSE to admit that inflation and demographics are immaterial to the comparison. Sucks to be your attempt to distract, again. QuoteI didn't claim that your figures were incorrect. Your figures ARE simply meaningless. So's your weaseling.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #96 August 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo the ultra-rich are not separated out from the merely rich You must have missed where he ASKED for the top 1%. Sucks to be your attempt to distract. Quoteand you admit that the effects of inflation and demographics are excluded. And you REFUSE to admit that inflation and demographics are immaterial to the comparison. Sucks to be your attempt to distract, again. Of course they are relevant. Absurd to claim that they are not.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #97 August 23, 2011 QuoteOf course they are relevant. Absurd to claim that they are not. They're only relevant to your lame distraction attempt. The income brackets for a particular year are being compared to all returns for a particular year, so no bogus 'demographic changes' are needed. The percentage of income tax collected from a particular bracket is being compared to the total income tax collected for a particular year, so no bogus 'inflation changes' are needed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites virgin-burner 1 #98 August 23, 2011 dang, mike, why dont you run for office!? you got it ALL figured out, those 14 trillions should only be a nightmare of the past in what, a week once you're in!? “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #99 August 23, 2011 Where's the beef in this argument? Lots of vague shots instead. Soon it will evolve to the point where a subject won't be necessary to create and maintain a thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #100 August 23, 2011 QuoteYour Republican pals at work. Nice spin attempt - gotta love the lame attempt to tie it to Cheny, too. Unfortunately for your argument, it's legal - just like the Indian tribes in the other thread. It's legal? just like all the people receiving welfare, food stamps, and unemployment. Funny how the Right calls all of these people greedy and lazy, yet when corporations do it, it's legal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,113 #92 August 23, 2011 At least they are becoming willing to compromise, and are starting to realize that we have to cut spending AND raise taxes. Now they just have to get over their ideological fears of taxing rich people as well as poor ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #93 August 23, 2011 QuoteAt least they are becoming willing to compromise, and are starting to realize that we have to cut spending AND raise taxes. Now they just have to get over their ideological fears of taxing rich people as well as poor ones. Would you please share the competing plans against which a compromise can be viewed? At least that way we can know what the Dems compromised"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #94 August 23, 2011 QuoteQuote1. You missed the ultra rich,[/repl] Last time I looked, 500k+ included....*gasp*... EVERYONE above 500k, which would also include the ultra rich. Quote2. No adjustment for inflation. Not comparing dollars year to year. Quote3. no adjustment for demographic changes. Not comparing to population at large, but against the total number of returns for the year. QuoteYour numbers are meaningless. Your weaseling is useless. So the ultra-rich are not separated out from the merely rich, and you admit that the effects of inflation and demographics are excluded. I didn't claim that your figures were incorrect. Your figures ARE simply meaningless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #95 August 23, 2011 QuoteSo the ultra-rich are not separated out from the merely rich You must have missed where he ASKED for the top 1%. Sucks to be your attempt to distract. Quoteand you admit that the effects of inflation and demographics are excluded. And you REFUSE to admit that inflation and demographics are immaterial to the comparison. Sucks to be your attempt to distract, again. QuoteI didn't claim that your figures were incorrect. Your figures ARE simply meaningless. So's your weaseling.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #96 August 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo the ultra-rich are not separated out from the merely rich You must have missed where he ASKED for the top 1%. Sucks to be your attempt to distract. Quoteand you admit that the effects of inflation and demographics are excluded. And you REFUSE to admit that inflation and demographics are immaterial to the comparison. Sucks to be your attempt to distract, again. Of course they are relevant. Absurd to claim that they are not.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #97 August 23, 2011 QuoteOf course they are relevant. Absurd to claim that they are not. They're only relevant to your lame distraction attempt. The income brackets for a particular year are being compared to all returns for a particular year, so no bogus 'demographic changes' are needed. The percentage of income tax collected from a particular bracket is being compared to the total income tax collected for a particular year, so no bogus 'inflation changes' are needed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites virgin-burner 1 #98 August 23, 2011 dang, mike, why dont you run for office!? you got it ALL figured out, those 14 trillions should only be a nightmare of the past in what, a week once you're in!? “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #99 August 23, 2011 Where's the beef in this argument? Lots of vague shots instead. Soon it will evolve to the point where a subject won't be necessary to create and maintain a thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jclalor 12 #100 August 23, 2011 QuoteYour Republican pals at work. Nice spin attempt - gotta love the lame attempt to tie it to Cheny, too. Unfortunately for your argument, it's legal - just like the Indian tribes in the other thread. It's legal? just like all the people receiving welfare, food stamps, and unemployment. Funny how the Right calls all of these people greedy and lazy, yet when corporations do it, it's legal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #95 August 23, 2011 QuoteSo the ultra-rich are not separated out from the merely rich You must have missed where he ASKED for the top 1%. Sucks to be your attempt to distract. Quoteand you admit that the effects of inflation and demographics are excluded. And you REFUSE to admit that inflation and demographics are immaterial to the comparison. Sucks to be your attempt to distract, again. QuoteI didn't claim that your figures were incorrect. Your figures ARE simply meaningless. So's your weaseling.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #96 August 23, 2011 QuoteQuoteSo the ultra-rich are not separated out from the merely rich You must have missed where he ASKED for the top 1%. Sucks to be your attempt to distract. Quoteand you admit that the effects of inflation and demographics are excluded. And you REFUSE to admit that inflation and demographics are immaterial to the comparison. Sucks to be your attempt to distract, again. Of course they are relevant. Absurd to claim that they are not.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #97 August 23, 2011 QuoteOf course they are relevant. Absurd to claim that they are not. They're only relevant to your lame distraction attempt. The income brackets for a particular year are being compared to all returns for a particular year, so no bogus 'demographic changes' are needed. The percentage of income tax collected from a particular bracket is being compared to the total income tax collected for a particular year, so no bogus 'inflation changes' are needed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #98 August 23, 2011 dang, mike, why dont you run for office!? you got it ALL figured out, those 14 trillions should only be a nightmare of the past in what, a week once you're in!? “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #99 August 23, 2011 Where's the beef in this argument? Lots of vague shots instead. Soon it will evolve to the point where a subject won't be necessary to create and maintain a thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #100 August 23, 2011 QuoteYour Republican pals at work. Nice spin attempt - gotta love the lame attempt to tie it to Cheny, too. Unfortunately for your argument, it's legal - just like the Indian tribes in the other thread. It's legal? just like all the people receiving welfare, food stamps, and unemployment. Funny how the Right calls all of these people greedy and lazy, yet when corporations do it, it's legal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
