NO APPLE CRITICISM ALLOWED!!
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Kurt Ullman on 19 Jul 2010 09:06 In article <znu-DC44BA.01464019072010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > "Socialism" is not a particularly specific term. There are some European > countries in which policies that could be described as "socialist" have > worked quite well. Yeah like France and Greece. Works up to a time when the country and the economy is growing, but when things finally start the other way, the excrement hits the air circulating device. They are already running into what we will be seeing in a few years, when there are too few workers supporting too many on government programs. > The tax burden on the rich has fallen sharply over the last 30 years. > And the share of pre-tax income earned by the top 10% is higher than it > has been in a hundred years -- and much, much higher than during the > decades today's conservatives seem to hold up as a template for an ideal > society. The IRS data I showed earlier would tend to contradict that first part. As does the results of other countries. For example, in the UK, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% was 11% in 1979. By 1987 (cutting the top rate from 83% to 60%) the top 1% paid 14% of the taxes. ANother cut to 40% and share rose to 21% The same thing appeared to have happened in Ca0 nada. The study I am using says so, but since more of the financial burden of government falls on the Provinces, I am not as convinced. However, our Australian brothers and sisters saw the same changes over the years. -- I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator and name it after the IRS. Robert Bakker, paleontologist
From: George Kerby on 19 Jul 2010 09:21 On 7/18/10 7:24 PM, in article i205vb$oee$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, "Phillip Jones" <pjones1(a)kimbanet.com> wrote: > Tim Murray wrote: >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article<AiE%n.33561$Ls1.11926(a)newsfe11.iad>, >>> "XX"<zs(a)orangegrove.org> wrote: >>> >>>> The Appassholes get affronted. >>>> >>>> What kind of sick mind protects a money grubbing corporation? >>> >>> Republicans, for one. >>> >>> >> >> Of course. Bite off the hand that provides the place for you to work. >> > They are not providing a place for Americans to work. Chinese, Japanese, > Koreans, Mexican South American, Philippines, India Indians, Canadian's, > and so on. But not American's > Except for the Wall Street Types. Most American are reduced to jobs at > Retail stores (Wally World and others), Grocery stores, and Eateries. > (Mickey D's, Hardees, Wendy's, Long John Silvers) > > There use to be three classes of People in the US. Rich, Middle Class, > and the Poor. > > Now there is two Rich and Poor. Tomorrow there will be one, if Obama has his way...
From: George Kerby on 19 Jul 2010 09:23 On 7/18/10 9:23 PM, in article timmcn-B60165.21234218072010(a)news-2.mpls.iphouse.net, "Tim McNamara" <timmcn(a)bitstream.net> wrote: > In article <i205vb$oee$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Phillip Jones <pjones1(a)kimbanet.com> wrote: > >> Tim Murray wrote: >>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>> In article<AiE%n.33561$Ls1.11926(a)newsfe11.iad>, >>>> "XX"<zs(a)orangegrove.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The Appassholes get affronted. >>>>> >>>>> What kind of sick mind protects a money grubbing corporation? >>>> >>>> Republicans, for one. >>> >>> Of course. Bite off the hand that provides the place for you to >>> work. > > It is not the Republicans who provide the place for me to work. Indeed, > since my job is to actually help people, the Republicans generally do > their best to prevent me from being able to do my job. > > But they love to take credit for all kinds of things they didn't do. > >> They are not providing a place for Americans to work. Chinese, >> Japanese, Koreans, Mexican South American, Philippines, India >> Indians, Canadian's, and so on. But not American's Except for the >> Wall Street Types. Most American are reduced to jobs at Retail stores >> (Wally World and others), Grocery stores, and Eateries. (Mickey D's, >> Hardees, Wendy's, Long John Silvers) >> >> There use to be three classes of People in the US. Rich, Middle >> Class, and the Poor. >> >> Now there is two Rich and Poor. > > Thanks to the Republicans engineering the biggest redistribution of > wealth in American history from the pockets of the middle class majority > to the pockets of the (already) richest 2%. Cite? The current president has spent more than all of the previous administrations put together. Money that our grandchildren will be paying back to cover that debt. Blow that lie out your distal orifice.
From: George Kerby on 19 Jul 2010 09:25 On 7/18/10 10:06 PM, in article i20fg9$kgq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, "Tim Murray" <no-spam(a)thankyou.com> wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: >> Thanks to the Republicans engineering the biggest redistribution of >> wealth in American history from the pockets of the middle class majority >> to the pockets of the (already) richest 2%. > > You gotta be kidding. Redistribution is a core Socialist theme. > Sounds like someone with the initials "B.O."?!?
From: -hh on 19 Jul 2010 10:18
Kurt Ullman <kurtull...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Â ZnU <z...(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > > And they've won over the last 30 years. Tax burdens on the rich have > > dropped substantially, and the gap between the rich and everyone else > > has widened. > > Â First of all... > Secondly it is patently false. IRS data shows that in 2007â¹the most > recent data availableâ¹the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent > of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is > the highest percentage in modern history. That very well may be so, but you're using a different metric to try to make a comparison: you're using Tax Revenue, not Tax Rate. As such, the basis of your arguement is very fatally flawed. To illustrate simplistically, that top 1% who pays 40.4% of the total taxes collected (Tax Revenue)...has 71% of the wealth, so why aren't they paying 71% of the Tax Revenue? To illustrate by way of an example, assume a nation with only two taxpayers: Joe Sixpack, who earns $290 Richard OnePercenter, who earns $710 Total national income that is subject to taxation: $1,000 (Note that Rich has $710/$1,000 = 71% of the wealth ... matches that statistic) Now income taxes are applied: Joe pays $59.60 in taxes Rich pays $40.40 in taxes Total Taxes paid: $100 (Note that Rich pays $40.40/$100 = 40.4% ... matches that statistic) From the above: Joe's tax rate is: ($59.60 / $290) = 20.55% Rich's tax rate is: ($40.40 / $710) = 5.69% YMMV, but most people would say that 5.69% is a lower tax _rate_ than 20.55% is. It is from such observations that the ethics question of "fairness" gets raised in regards to how the total tax burden should be shared, and traditionally, this discourages a regressive tax rate. The common fallacy in the counter-argument in this type of discussion is to simplistically count people (households) while ignoring the appropriateness to normalize these subpopulation percentiles (eg, "Top 10%", etc) by their actual percentages of total wealth. Thus we end up with statements that claim that it is somehow "unfair" for those who have 71% of the wealth to be paying 40.4% of the taxes - - because it is somehow (very conveniently) skipped over the 71% "money population" fact to shift gears to highlight the fact that they're only 1% of the human population. YMMV, but this is very disingenous and thus, is attempting to be manipulative of the facts to suit a particular agenda. The fact remains: Mathamatically, the only way that it is possible for 71% of the Wealth to pay less than 71% of the total Tax Revenue is if there are regressive tax _rates_ present. -hh |