NO APPLE CRITICISM ALLOWED!!
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: ZnU on 19 Jul 2010 14:48 In article <vNedna0Iipjs1tnRnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <znu-73888B.01011519072010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, > ZnU <znu(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. > > First of all half of the households in the US pay no taxes. Indded > most of those actually get money back from the feds and have a NEGATIVE > tax rate. > Secondly it is patently false. IRS data shows that in 2007�the most > recent data available�the 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. By contrast, the top 1 percent > paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following > the 1986 tax reform act. Horribly misleading. The _rate_ has declined. The _fraction of total taxes_ as increased despite the decline in rate precisely because the top 1% now earn a _larger_ fraction of the total income. In other words, the facts that you're claiming refute what I'm saying are actually a consequence of the _accuracy_ of what I'm saying. It is also extremely misleading to only count income tax, which is progressive, and ignore, for instance, payroll taxes and some local taxes like sales taxes, which are effectively _regressive_. These are the games the right-wingers constantly play, as the gap between the rich and everyone else grows wider and wider. This is census data, so it doesn't go through preset-day, but this is change in median income across quintiles (and top 5%) from 1975-2001, in inflation-adjusted dollars: Household Lowest Second Third Fourth Highest Top 5 Rank Fifth Fifth Fifth Fifth Fifth Percent 1975 8,798 20,891 34,181 49,637 86,443 127,421 2001 10,136 25,468 42,629 66,839 145,970 260,464 Change: +15.2% +21.9% +24.7% +34.6% +68.8% +104.4% Not exactly a victory for socialism, you know? [snip] -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: ZnU on 19 Jul 2010 14:57 In article <GqWdnZQlkbdR0NnRnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Reduced tax revenue in times of economic downturn is hardly specific to "socialist" countries. > 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 retired population is growing relative to the labor force. This will inevitably result in workers having to give up more to support retirees. If you think you've found some way around this, you've merely succeeded in obfuscating the problem sufficiently to confuse yourself. [snip; see my reply to your other post for tax rate vs. tax burden issues] -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: ZnU on 19 Jul 2010 15:06 In article <C869BC1E.394C0%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. Um... that's obviously wrong. > Money that our grandchildren will be paying back to cover that debt. If it weren't for the wars Bush started, his tax cuts, and the economic downturn and necessary bailout measures (which began under Bush), the budget would be pretty close to being balanced: http://www.offthechartsblog.org/whose-deficit-is-it-anyway/ > Blow that lie out your distal orifice. -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
From: Kurt Ullman on 19 Jul 2010 15:59 In article <znu-3FC419.14572319072010(a)Port80.Individual.NET>, ZnU <znu(a)fake.invalid> wrote: > In article <GqWdnZQlkbdR0NnRnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > Reduced tax revenue in times of economic downturn is hardly specific > to "socialist" countries. No, this is related to demographics, definitely exacerbated by the econ downturn. The downturn sped things up a little, but the same outcome was inevitable. > > > 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 retired population is growing relative to the labor force. This will > inevitably result in workers having to give up more to support retirees. > If you think you've found some way around this, you've merely succeeded > in obfuscating the problem sufficiently to confuse yourself. In 1950, there were 0.14 retirees per worker. By 1995, this had risen to 0.22 retirees per worker. Over the next 40 years this increase continues unabated, reaching 0.29 retirees per worker in 2020, and 0.39 retirees per worker in 2040. This constitutes a 75% increases in the retiree ratio relative to 1995. How are the workers going to give up enough. Also, why should they give up so much to support retirees. Between SS, Medicare, and some of the details of the health plan (such as minimizing the difference in premium between high cost oldsters and less cost youngsters) you will a massive shift of wealth from younger generations to the older one. -- I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator and name it after the IRS. Robert Bakker, paleontologist
From: ZnU on 19 Jul 2010 16:15
In article <TOmdnYB2NK2eMdnRnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <lloydparsons-67E195.12352719072010(a)port80.individual.net>, > Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons(a)mac.com> wrote: > > > > The recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an Organisation for > > > Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) study released last year > > > showing that the U.S.�not France or Sweden�has the most progressive > > > income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 > > > percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the > > > lowest tax burden of those in any nation. > > > > The question that begs an answer is how much of the wealth is held by > > the top 1% of taxpayers? If the answer is 40%, then the tax burden is > > about right, but if it is greater as I suspect, then they aren't paying > > enough. > > I don't know if anyone knows. They pay a higher percentage of taxes > then they have income, but I haven't found any place that gives a real > good handle on how to count wealth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States "According to Tax Foundation, when including comprehensive household income for 1991 to 2004, which consists of both market-based income and the net value of government transfer payments, the top quintile earned 41.5% and paid 48.8% of total taxes. The fourth quintile earned 21.0% and paid 22.4%. The third quintile earned 15.4% and paid 14.8%. The second quintile earned 12.2% and paid 9.6%. The lowest quintile earned 9.8% and paid 4.3% of total taxes." Redistribution barely exists in the US. There certainly isn't nearly enough of it to offset the market's inherent propensity to make the rich richer faster than everyone else, which is precisely why they've been _getting_ richer faster than everyone else over the last three decades. You can argue all you like about how "fair" this might be, but if it goes on for long enough the obvious consequence is oligarchy. We're already pretty far down that road. [snip] -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes |