I know you wouldnt describe it that way Sean cause you are biased....the unbiased definition is the gentleman's quarterly domestic product observation...As for the 1% group, gee, my heart goes out to their like with such a burden...never has stopped them from buying these $20,000 ice sculptures for their little parties or $6000 shower doors...The greed of these folks is astounding and I have no qualms whatsoever about gearing any cuts toward the middle class...the ones who need the most HELP - thats what its about...With your vantage point, Sean, why dont we just do a straight percentage for the income tax...Or, better yet, eliminate it completely and rely on a sales tax..Yeah, that'll work..
Political Change
- Thread starter Buck
- Start date
KC, be careful what you ask for...the guidelines for the tax systems as they currently are is that the rate starts the lowest for lower incomes and graduates for higher incomes, with the concept that the impact of those upper income marginal tax dollars on one's livelihood is limited. Even if you personally get a lower rate, you would be granting these folks a windfall and they would be laughing at your a$$...remember, only the little people pay taxes (Leona Helmsley to a servant)..And the big ones evade them...
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,373
- Reaction score
- 1,431
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]
[P]With your vantage point, Sean, why dont we just do a straight percentage for the income tax.....[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]Hey...that'd be the fairest thing to do. It beats the heck out of the rate I currently pay....and I'm considered solidly middle class.[/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]
[P]With your vantage point, Sean, why dont we just do a straight percentage for the income tax.....[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]Hey...that'd be the fairest thing to do. It beats the heck out of the rate I currently pay....and I'm considered solidly middle class.[/P]
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/7/2002 1
11 PM JI Guy wrote:
I know you wouldnt describe it that way Sean cause you are biased....the unbiased definition is the gentleman's quarterly domestic product observation...As for the 1% group, gee, my heart goes out to their like with such a burden...never has stopped them from buying these $20,000 ice sculptures for their little parties or $6000 shower doors...The greed of these folks is astounding and I have no qualms whatsoever about gearing any cuts toward the middle class...the ones who need the most HELP - thats what its about...With your vantage point, Sean, why dont we just do a straight percentage for the income tax...Or, better yet, eliminate it completely and rely on a sales tax..Yeah, that'll work..
----------------
[/blockquote]
JI Guy,
Yes I am biased as are you and everyone else who has an opinion on anything. My point was Bush had barely taken office when the recession started and could not have had anything to do with the failing economy he inherited. That is not a biased or politicly slanted position. That's just the way it is.
As to your tax statements, although I agree with KCFlyer that a flat would be the fairest way to do it, it would not work. I don't have a problem with the wealthier people paying more in taxes. What I do have a problem with is that when there is talks of tax cuts the whiners come out crying because the people who pay the majority of taxes might actually get a tax cut. To say that the middle and lower class should be the only people who get a tax cut is just wrong. They don't pay the majority of taxes, so why should they get all the tax cuts? And, why do you care how a fellow citizen spends his or her money? It sounds like typical jealousy. If they want and can afford a $6000 shower door why should that bother you? Actually you should encourage it. Since you claim to care so much about the middle class. It was probably middle class workers who produced that door. Nobody buying those doors means no jobs making them. It does trickle down whether you like it or not.
----------------
On 11/7/2002 1
11 PM JI Guy wrote: I know you wouldnt describe it that way Sean cause you are biased....the unbiased definition is the gentleman's quarterly domestic product observation...As for the 1% group, gee, my heart goes out to their like with such a burden...never has stopped them from buying these $20,000 ice sculptures for their little parties or $6000 shower doors...The greed of these folks is astounding and I have no qualms whatsoever about gearing any cuts toward the middle class...the ones who need the most HELP - thats what its about...With your vantage point, Sean, why dont we just do a straight percentage for the income tax...Or, better yet, eliminate it completely and rely on a sales tax..Yeah, that'll work..
----------------
[/blockquote]
JI Guy,
Yes I am biased as are you and everyone else who has an opinion on anything. My point was Bush had barely taken office when the recession started and could not have had anything to do with the failing economy he inherited. That is not a biased or politicly slanted position. That's just the way it is.
As to your tax statements, although I agree with KCFlyer that a flat would be the fairest way to do it, it would not work. I don't have a problem with the wealthier people paying more in taxes. What I do have a problem with is that when there is talks of tax cuts the whiners come out crying because the people who pay the majority of taxes might actually get a tax cut. To say that the middle and lower class should be the only people who get a tax cut is just wrong. They don't pay the majority of taxes, so why should they get all the tax cuts? And, why do you care how a fellow citizen spends his or her money? It sounds like typical jealousy. If they want and can afford a $6000 shower door why should that bother you? Actually you should encourage it. Since you claim to care so much about the middle class. It was probably middle class workers who produced that door. Nobody buying those doors means no jobs making them. It does trickle down whether you like it or not.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/7/2002 3:29:48 PM JI Guy wrote:
Im not opposed to extending the tax cuts across all ranges - BUT I am opposed to dumping the large majority of the money to that 1%...My point about the $6000 shower door (to live in Ken Lay infamy alongside Marcos' shoes) is that the tax rates have NEVER prevented this type of spending. Look, people can spend disposable as they want but my point was the tax rates didnt impinge on these nice little touches, not a jealous reaction...Sean, you sound envious actually that Bill Clinton presided over a record economic expansion at a time of low interest rates AND a federal budget surplus...I know it drives you crazy but thats the record...And I know if the situation were reversed with a Democrat coming in instead of Bush following a Reagan type Presidency, you would be blaming him for the recession and using the GDP definition to further your argument, wouldnt you Sean?...You know it.
----------------
[/blockquote]
JI Guy,
So you like it that one group of people pay the majority of all taxes. Yet you don't like it that those same people who paid nearly all of the taxes get the largest tax cuts. You think the people who paid very little should reap the benefits of the tax cuts. That makes a lot of sense. Not surprising though. Between the unions and the democratic party thats the way it should be isn't it? Do little but take as much as possible from those who have more than you.
As for Clinton. No, I'm not envious of him being President during a good economy. However, if you are going to praise him for there being a good economy during part of his presidency then be consistent and blame him for the economy failing under him also. By the way both are absurd statements. I have posted numerous times that a President is not the most responsible for any economy good or bad. I wish he were never the President but's that's an entirely different thread.
----------------
On 11/7/2002 3:29:48 PM JI Guy wrote:
Im not opposed to extending the tax cuts across all ranges - BUT I am opposed to dumping the large majority of the money to that 1%...My point about the $6000 shower door (to live in Ken Lay infamy alongside Marcos' shoes) is that the tax rates have NEVER prevented this type of spending. Look, people can spend disposable as they want but my point was the tax rates didnt impinge on these nice little touches, not a jealous reaction...Sean, you sound envious actually that Bill Clinton presided over a record economic expansion at a time of low interest rates AND a federal budget surplus...I know it drives you crazy but thats the record...And I know if the situation were reversed with a Democrat coming in instead of Bush following a Reagan type Presidency, you would be blaming him for the recession and using the GDP definition to further your argument, wouldnt you Sean?...You know it.
----------------
[/blockquote]
JI Guy,
So you like it that one group of people pay the majority of all taxes. Yet you don't like it that those same people who paid nearly all of the taxes get the largest tax cuts. You think the people who paid very little should reap the benefits of the tax cuts. That makes a lot of sense. Not surprising though. Between the unions and the democratic party thats the way it should be isn't it? Do little but take as much as possible from those who have more than you.
As for Clinton. No, I'm not envious of him being President during a good economy. However, if you are going to praise him for there being a good economy during part of his presidency then be consistent and blame him for the economy failing under him also. By the way both are absurd statements. I have posted numerous times that a President is not the most responsible for any economy good or bad. I wish he were never the President but's that's an entirely different thread.
Im not opposed to extending the tax cuts across all ranges - BUT I am opposed to dumping the large majority of the money to that 1%...My point about the $6000 shower door (to live in Ken Lay infamy alongside Marcos' shoes) is that the tax rates have NEVER prevented this type of spending. Look, people can spend disposable as they want but my point was the tax rates didnt impinge on these nice little touches, not a jealous reaction...Sean, you sound envious actually that Bill Clinton presided over a record economic expansion at a time of low interest rates AND a federal budget surplus...I know it drives you crazy but thats the record...And I know if the situation were reversed with a Democrat coming in instead of Bush following a Reagan type Presidency, you would be blaming him for the recession and using the GDP definition to further your argument, wouldnt you Sean?...You know it.
Yes I do subscribe to the concept that those that have the most to lose should pay the highest taxes..The concept here is since they have the most to lose economically in case of a takeover (defense spending) or a revolution (social benefits) they should pay the most...A basic economic principle from a conservative way of thinking...Well, maybe I lumped you into the raft of Republicans who would do that blame game...I saw it here in New Jersey with the national economy going south big time just as Democrat Florio assumed office in 1990...All these GOPers here were like its Florio's fault and dont pin this on our President George Bush...Florio assumed office from Republican Tom Kean and Florio was ousted after one term...Now these same folks are like its not GW's fault, it started under Clinton...So thats my beef. Let's cut the crap, hypocrites!
MrMarky
Advanced
Sean--
Your claim that the top income earners pay nearly all the taxes is just plain wrong. I don't have the precise numbers in front of me, but I can assure you that the middle class pays the vast majority of taxes collected by our government.
The top one or two percent do enjoy a near monopoly on special tax breaks, tax credits, tax write-offs and other loopholes which make it possible for some of them to pay no taxes at all!
BTW, the income group with by far the highest percentage of IRS audits is of course, those earning under $25,000. Especially if they claim the earned income credit. Yes, the poverty stricken are hiding all of their vast assets and the IRS intends to find them!
As far as the Clinton economy vs. the Bush economy, I wonder which one the airline CEO's (not to mention most of the rest of America's CEO's) would prefer?
mAArky
Your claim that the top income earners pay nearly all the taxes is just plain wrong. I don't have the precise numbers in front of me, but I can assure you that the middle class pays the vast majority of taxes collected by our government.
The top one or two percent do enjoy a near monopoly on special tax breaks, tax credits, tax write-offs and other loopholes which make it possible for some of them to pay no taxes at all!
BTW, the income group with by far the highest percentage of IRS audits is of course, those earning under $25,000. Especially if they claim the earned income credit. Yes, the poverty stricken are hiding all of their vast assets and the IRS intends to find them!
As far as the Clinton economy vs. the Bush economy, I wonder which one the airline CEO's (not to mention most of the rest of America's CEO's) would prefer?
mAArky
ITRADE
Veteran
[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR][FONT size=1]----------------[BR]On 11/7/2002 5:18:21 PM MrMarky wrote:[BR][BR]Sean--[BR][BR]Your claim that the top income earners pay nearly all the taxes is just plain wrong. I don't have the precise numbers in front of me, but I can assure you that the middle class pays the vast majority of taxes collected by our government.[BR][BR]The top one or two percent do enjoy a near monopoly on special tax breaks, tax credits, tax write-offs and other loopholes which make it possible for some of them to pay no taxes at all![BR][BR]----------------[/FONT][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]MrMarky, you are virtually 100% wrong on this.[BR][BR]In 1999, $[FONT face=Verdana size=2]877,292,000,000[/FONT] was paid in income tax. The top 1% of taxpayers paid $[FONT face=Verdana size=2]317,419,000,000 of that tax - or 36.2% of the total. The top 5% of taxpayers paid $486,464,000,000 in taxes - or 55.5% of the total.[/FONT][BR][BR]The top 5%ers made $120,000 or above in AGI.[BR][BR]Dropping down a bit farther to the top 10% level, this group paid an astounding $[FONT face=Verdana size=2]583,002,000,000 in taxes or 66.5% of all taxes paid.[/FONT][/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style=MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px]
[P][FONT face=Verdana size=1]----------------[BR]On 11/7/2002 5:18:21 PM MrMarky wrote:[BR][BR]Sean--[/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Verdana size=1]BTW, the income group with by far the highest percentage of IRS audits is of course, those earning under $25,000. Especially if they claim the earned income credit. Yes, the poverty stricken are hiding all of their vast assets and the IRS intends to find them![/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Verdana size=1]----------------[/FONT][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]An extaggaration here. In FY 1999, the IRS audited 1.15% of returns with $100,000 or more in AGI and 1.36% of returns with $25,000 or less in AGI. According to recent news reports, the IRS is abandoning virtually all audits of small fries in order to concentrate on larger whales where the return potential is much higher.[BR][BR][FONT face=Verdana size=2]You're statements are nothing but conjecture, and baseless conjecture at that.[/FONT][/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR][FONT size=1]----------------[BR]On 11/7/2002 5:18:21 PM MrMarky wrote:[BR][BR]Sean--[BR][BR]Your claim that the top income earners pay nearly all the taxes is just plain wrong. I don't have the precise numbers in front of me, but I can assure you that the middle class pays the vast majority of taxes collected by our government.[BR][BR]The top one or two percent do enjoy a near monopoly on special tax breaks, tax credits, tax write-offs and other loopholes which make it possible for some of them to pay no taxes at all![BR][BR]----------------[/FONT][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]MrMarky, you are virtually 100% wrong on this.[BR][BR]In 1999, $[FONT face=Verdana size=2]877,292,000,000[/FONT] was paid in income tax. The top 1% of taxpayers paid $[FONT face=Verdana size=2]317,419,000,000 of that tax - or 36.2% of the total. The top 5% of taxpayers paid $486,464,000,000 in taxes - or 55.5% of the total.[/FONT][BR][BR]The top 5%ers made $120,000 or above in AGI.[BR][BR]Dropping down a bit farther to the top 10% level, this group paid an astounding $[FONT face=Verdana size=2]583,002,000,000 in taxes or 66.5% of all taxes paid.[/FONT][/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style=MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px]
[P][FONT face=Verdana size=1]----------------[BR]On 11/7/2002 5:18:21 PM MrMarky wrote:[BR][BR]Sean--[/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Verdana size=1]BTW, the income group with by far the highest percentage of IRS audits is of course, those earning under $25,000. Especially if they claim the earned income credit. Yes, the poverty stricken are hiding all of their vast assets and the IRS intends to find them![/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Verdana size=1]----------------[/FONT][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]An extaggaration here. In FY 1999, the IRS audited 1.15% of returns with $100,000 or more in AGI and 1.36% of returns with $25,000 or less in AGI. According to recent news reports, the IRS is abandoning virtually all audits of small fries in order to concentrate on larger whales where the return potential is much higher.[BR][BR][FONT face=Verdana size=2]You're statements are nothing but conjecture, and baseless conjecture at that.[/FONT][/P]
MrMarky
Advanced
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/7/2002 6:03:57 PM ITRADE wrote:
[P][FONT size=1]-------------[/FONT][/P][BR][BR]MrMarky, you are virtually 100% wrong on this.[BR][BR]In 1999, $[FONT face=Verdana size=2]877,292,000,000[/FONT] was paid in income tax; The top 1% of taxpayers paid $[FONT face=Verdana size=2]317,419,000,000 of that tax - or 36.2% of the total.[/FONT][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr 0px"]
[P]In FY 1999, the IRS audited 1.15% of returns with $100,000 or more in AGI and 1.36% of returns with $25,000 or less in AGI.[/P]
[P] [/P]
[P][STRONG]ITRADE,[/STRONG][/P][STRONG][/STRONG][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr 0px"]
[P][STRONG]Thanks for bolstering my points with numbers, which I will assume to be correct. [/STRONG][/P]
[P][STRONG]As your statistics indicate, nearly all taxes being paid by the top 1%, turns out to be a mere 36.2%, or just over a third. And since these figures are from 1999, they do not reflect the Bush tax breaks given to the wealthiest income groups, which will no doubt reduce that number even further.[/STRONG][/P]
[P][STRONG]And as I stated, the bottom income group gets more audits than the top, for all the sense that practice makes. In fact a 1.36% rate is significantly higher than a 1.15% rate. Now where do you think they might find some hidden money--the people making $25,000 or less, or the people making $100,000 or more?? The bottom income group probably has a high percentage of 1040A and 1040EZ filers, as well, since most probably have little in the way of itemizable expenses. So where would they even hide assets if they had them? It must cost the gov't more to audit these people than they can possibly hope to collect in undeclared income or unallowable deductions.[/STRONG][/P]
[P][STRONG]mAArky[/STRONG][/P]
[P][BR][BR][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/7/2002 6:03:57 PM ITRADE wrote:
[P][FONT size=1]-------------[/FONT][/P][BR][BR]MrMarky, you are virtually 100% wrong on this.[BR][BR]In 1999, $[FONT face=Verdana size=2]877,292,000,000[/FONT] was paid in income tax; The top 1% of taxpayers paid $[FONT face=Verdana size=2]317,419,000,000 of that tax - or 36.2% of the total.[/FONT][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr 0px"]
[P]In FY 1999, the IRS audited 1.15% of returns with $100,000 or more in AGI and 1.36% of returns with $25,000 or less in AGI.[/P]
[P] [/P]
[P][STRONG]ITRADE,[/STRONG][/P][STRONG][/STRONG][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr 0px"]
[P][STRONG]Thanks for bolstering my points with numbers, which I will assume to be correct. [/STRONG][/P]
[P][STRONG]As your statistics indicate, nearly all taxes being paid by the top 1%, turns out to be a mere 36.2%, or just over a third. And since these figures are from 1999, they do not reflect the Bush tax breaks given to the wealthiest income groups, which will no doubt reduce that number even further.[/STRONG][/P]
[P][STRONG]And as I stated, the bottom income group gets more audits than the top, for all the sense that practice makes. In fact a 1.36% rate is significantly higher than a 1.15% rate. Now where do you think they might find some hidden money--the people making $25,000 or less, or the people making $100,000 or more?? The bottom income group probably has a high percentage of 1040A and 1040EZ filers, as well, since most probably have little in the way of itemizable expenses. So where would they even hide assets if they had them? It must cost the gov't more to audit these people than they can possibly hope to collect in undeclared income or unallowable deductions.[/STRONG][/P]
[P][STRONG]mAArky[/STRONG][/P]
[P][BR][BR][/P][/BLOCKQUOTE][/BLOCKQUOTE]
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 10,154
- Reaction score
- 681
As sgt. Joe Friday use to say,
just the FACTS Ma'am, just the FACTS !!!
F A C T(s)
1. His fraudulentcy (Dumbya), was SELECTED President, by a huge(ly) divided Supreme Court.
2. The 5-4 vote was along party lines. The 5, all appointed by the GOP.
3. This moronic president(and his administration), has BLOWN thru a gigantic $$$$ surplus, FASTER than Imelda Marcos, could buy shoes.
4. Everyones 401k,(No political discrimination being applied here), is at best, a 101K !!!!!!!!!!!
I honestly believe that a huge portion of the American People are playing it safe, and giving the guy, who just happened to be in office during 9/11, more power, because Rudy Giuliani told all of America that GWB was doing a fabulous job, going after Osama Bin Laden. I further believe that people are choosing that , over thier family's financial well being.
Lastly, the GOP has ALL the power now. So if there are any F--K UP's,(and you can bet your Ass, there will be), guess where the blame will land now ??
NO IF's AND's or BUT's !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NH/BB's
AA/AFL-CIO
just the FACTS Ma'am, just the FACTS !!!
F A C T(s)
1. His fraudulentcy (Dumbya), was SELECTED President, by a huge(ly) divided Supreme Court.
2. The 5-4 vote was along party lines. The 5, all appointed by the GOP.
3. This moronic president(and his administration), has BLOWN thru a gigantic $$$$ surplus, FASTER than Imelda Marcos, could buy shoes.
4. Everyones 401k,(No political discrimination being applied here), is at best, a 101K !!!!!!!!!!!
I honestly believe that a huge portion of the American People are playing it safe, and giving the guy, who just happened to be in office during 9/11, more power, because Rudy Giuliani told all of America that GWB was doing a fabulous job, going after Osama Bin Laden. I further believe that people are choosing that , over thier family's financial well being.
Lastly, the GOP has ALL the power now. So if there are any F--K UP's,(and you can bet your Ass, there will be), guess where the blame will land now ??
NO IF's AND's or BUT's !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NH/BB's
AA/AFL-CIO
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/7/2002 5:18:21 PM MrMarky wrote:
Sean--
Your claim that the top income earners pay nearly all the taxes is just plain wrong. I don't have the precise numbers in front of me, but I can assure you that the middle class pays the vast majority of taxes collected by our government.
The top one or two percent do enjoy a near monopoly on special tax breaks, tax credits, tax write-offs and other loopholes which make it possible for some of them to pay no taxes at all!
BTW, the income group with by far the highest percentage of IRS audits is of course, those earning under $25,000. Especially if they claim the earned income credit. Yes, the poverty stricken are hiding all of their vast assets and the IRS intends to find them!
As far as the Clinton economy vs. the Bush economy, I wonder which one the airline CEO's (not to mention most of the rest of America's CEO's) would prefer?
mAArky
----------------
[/blockquote]
****o mAArky, good to hear from you. The numbers provided do tell a story. They obviously prove that the middle class does not pay the vast majority of taxes collected by our government. The richest 1% pay over a third of the nations taxes. The top 5% pays 55.5% of the nations taxes. Using conventional math that is a majority of the taxes paid in this country, with the top 1% paying more than half of that.
As far as the IRS is concerned I will never understand why they do what they do. I would also never defend them. Enough said about them.
You are right. These numbers do not reflect the tax cuts. The 15% dropped to 10% so now the lower tax bracket does pay even less.
Then there is the black bear.
1. W was elected, no matter how much you dislike it. I know you hate it when judges uphold the laws that you don't agree with but get over it already. You must have forgot that the news agencies in Florida, who were very left leaning, determined that had the Supreme Court voted the way you and Gore wanted Bush would still have won. The whining got old a long time ago. Dumbya? Bush has a masters degree from an Ivy League school. Yeah lots of dumb people pull that off. On the other hand Gore flunked out of divinity school in Tennessee. Yeah there's a real bright bulb for you. Just the facts ma'am.
2. Looks as if 5 voted to actually uphold Florida laws and 4 wanted to subvert it.
3. This President has had to deal with more than any other in history. He inherited a tanking economy and recession. At about the same time we were coming out of the recession 9-11 happened. Two major factors he had no control over. Anyway there shouldn't be a surplus anyway. The government should take in enough money to pay for what needs to be done and that's it. It shouldn't be stockpiling our money.
4. Everyone with any intelligence also knows that the economy and stock market are cyclical. It goes up AND it goes down. Nice try though. How about instead of always whining about the situation look at the positive? Now, when you put money into your 401k every month you get to buy a lot more and down the road you will reap larger benefits.
So if there are any F--K UP's,(and you can bet your Ass, there will be), guess where the blame will land now ??
What a classy statement. I'm sure nobody will be surprised though. Oh, could you please tell me what the Powerball numbers are going to be. Since you obviously can predict the future I would really appreciate it.
----------------
On 11/7/2002 5:18:21 PM MrMarky wrote:
Sean--
Your claim that the top income earners pay nearly all the taxes is just plain wrong. I don't have the precise numbers in front of me, but I can assure you that the middle class pays the vast majority of taxes collected by our government.
The top one or two percent do enjoy a near monopoly on special tax breaks, tax credits, tax write-offs and other loopholes which make it possible for some of them to pay no taxes at all!
BTW, the income group with by far the highest percentage of IRS audits is of course, those earning under $25,000. Especially if they claim the earned income credit. Yes, the poverty stricken are hiding all of their vast assets and the IRS intends to find them!
As far as the Clinton economy vs. the Bush economy, I wonder which one the airline CEO's (not to mention most of the rest of America's CEO's) would prefer?
mAArky
----------------
[/blockquote]
****o mAArky, good to hear from you. The numbers provided do tell a story. They obviously prove that the middle class does not pay the vast majority of taxes collected by our government. The richest 1% pay over a third of the nations taxes. The top 5% pays 55.5% of the nations taxes. Using conventional math that is a majority of the taxes paid in this country, with the top 1% paying more than half of that.
As far as the IRS is concerned I will never understand why they do what they do. I would also never defend them. Enough said about them.
You are right. These numbers do not reflect the tax cuts. The 15% dropped to 10% so now the lower tax bracket does pay even less.
Then there is the black bear.
1. W was elected, no matter how much you dislike it. I know you hate it when judges uphold the laws that you don't agree with but get over it already. You must have forgot that the news agencies in Florida, who were very left leaning, determined that had the Supreme Court voted the way you and Gore wanted Bush would still have won. The whining got old a long time ago. Dumbya? Bush has a masters degree from an Ivy League school. Yeah lots of dumb people pull that off. On the other hand Gore flunked out of divinity school in Tennessee. Yeah there's a real bright bulb for you. Just the facts ma'am.
2. Looks as if 5 voted to actually uphold Florida laws and 4 wanted to subvert it.
3. This President has had to deal with more than any other in history. He inherited a tanking economy and recession. At about the same time we were coming out of the recession 9-11 happened. Two major factors he had no control over. Anyway there shouldn't be a surplus anyway. The government should take in enough money to pay for what needs to be done and that's it. It shouldn't be stockpiling our money.
4. Everyone with any intelligence also knows that the economy and stock market are cyclical. It goes up AND it goes down. Nice try though. How about instead of always whining about the situation look at the positive? Now, when you put money into your 401k every month you get to buy a lot more and down the road you will reap larger benefits.
So if there are any F--K UP's,(and you can bet your Ass, there will be), guess where the blame will land now ??
What a classy statement. I'm sure nobody will be surprised though. Oh, could you please tell me what the Powerball numbers are going to be. Since you obviously can predict the future I would really appreciate it.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,373
- Reaction score
- 1,431
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/8/2002 11:08:56 AM JI Guy wrote:
[P]Sean, give me the Florida law that was subverted by the five minority votes on the Supreme Court. Florida law allowed for a recount using what standard? The intent of the voter OK, and how is that to be determined? By the county election boards...The Supreme Court STOPPED the counting (and let me tell you if there was more time I believe Kennedy would have swung over) due to the equal protection question...BUT if you really want to boil that down, the equal protection wasnt in place on election day as some counties had optical scan machines and some still used punch cards...Statistically, it was proven there is a much greater degree of error in punchcard than optical scan uses mainly because the punchcard has the issue with chads (if not completely detached, it could result in an undervote when sent thru the machine)...Actually, Sean, the consortium found out that GORE won IF one used the most stringent recount procedures and ALL counties were counted...The Gore campaign should have asked for a statewide recount. I believe this was a major PR mistake and the only fair way of doing it...I supported a statewide recount..[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]They didn't stop the counting...they stopped this [A href=http://charlestondaily.com/Photos/pols/chad.sm.jpg]http://charlestondaily.com/Photos/pols/chad.sm.jpg[/A][/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/8/2002 11:08:56 AM JI Guy wrote:
[P]Sean, give me the Florida law that was subverted by the five minority votes on the Supreme Court. Florida law allowed for a recount using what standard? The intent of the voter OK, and how is that to be determined? By the county election boards...The Supreme Court STOPPED the counting (and let me tell you if there was more time I believe Kennedy would have swung over) due to the equal protection question...BUT if you really want to boil that down, the equal protection wasnt in place on election day as some counties had optical scan machines and some still used punch cards...Statistically, it was proven there is a much greater degree of error in punchcard than optical scan uses mainly because the punchcard has the issue with chads (if not completely detached, it could result in an undervote when sent thru the machine)...Actually, Sean, the consortium found out that GORE won IF one used the most stringent recount procedures and ALL counties were counted...The Gore campaign should have asked for a statewide recount. I believe this was a major PR mistake and the only fair way of doing it...I supported a statewide recount..[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]They didn't stop the counting...they stopped this [A href=http://charlestondaily.com/Photos/pols/chad.sm.jpg]http://charlestondaily.com/Photos/pols/chad.sm.jpg[/A][/P]
ITRADE
Veteran
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/8/2002 11:08:56 AM JI Guy wrote:
[P]Sean, give me the Florida law that was subverted by the five minority votes on the Supreme Court. Florida law allowed for a recount using what standard? The intent of the voter OK, and how is that to be determined? By the county election boards...The Supreme Court STOPPED the counting (and let me tell you if there was more time I believe Kennedy would have swung over) due to the equal protection question...BUT if you really want to boil that down, the equal protection wasnt in place on election day as some counties had optical scan machines and some still used punch cards...Statistically, it was proven there is a much greater degree of error in punchcard than optical scan uses mainly because the punchcard has the issue with chads (if not completely detached, it could result in an undervote when sent thru the machine)...Actually, Sean, the consortium found out that GORE won IF one used the most stringent recount procedures and ALL counties were counted...The Gore campaign should have asked for a statewide recount. I believe this was a major PR mistake and the only fair way of doing it...I supported a statewide recount..[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]Ummm....They did, what, three recounts and Gore still wasn't happy. Every time they did a recount, more and more of those little chads started falling on the floor. There were bits of them in the boxes and on other voting ballots.[BR][BR]I guess if you lose three recounts, why not ask for another. Right.
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 11/8/2002 11:08:56 AM JI Guy wrote:
[P]Sean, give me the Florida law that was subverted by the five minority votes on the Supreme Court. Florida law allowed for a recount using what standard? The intent of the voter OK, and how is that to be determined? By the county election boards...The Supreme Court STOPPED the counting (and let me tell you if there was more time I believe Kennedy would have swung over) due to the equal protection question...BUT if you really want to boil that down, the equal protection wasnt in place on election day as some counties had optical scan machines and some still used punch cards...Statistically, it was proven there is a much greater degree of error in punchcard than optical scan uses mainly because the punchcard has the issue with chads (if not completely detached, it could result in an undervote when sent thru the machine)...Actually, Sean, the consortium found out that GORE won IF one used the most stringent recount procedures and ALL counties were counted...The Gore campaign should have asked for a statewide recount. I believe this was a major PR mistake and the only fair way of doing it...I supported a statewide recount..[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]Ummm....They did, what, three recounts and Gore still wasn't happy. Every time they did a recount, more and more of those little chads started falling on the floor. There were bits of them in the boxes and on other voting ballots.[BR][BR]I guess if you lose three recounts, why not ask for another. Right.
Sean, give me the Florida law that was subverted by the five minority votes on the Supreme Court. Florida law allowed for a recount using what standard? The intent of the voter OK, and how is that to be determined? By the county election boards...The Supreme Court STOPPED the counting (and let me tell you if there was more time I believe Kennedy would have swung over) due to the equal protection question...BUT if you really want to boil that down, the equal protection wasnt in place on election day as some counties had optical scan machines and some still used punch cards...Statistically, it was proven there is a much greater degree of error in punchcard than optical scan uses mainly because the punchcard has the issue with chads (if not completely detached, it could result in an undervote when sent thru the machine)...Actually, Sean, the consortium found out that GORE won IF one used the most stringent recount procedures and ALL counties were counted...The Gore campaign should have asked for a statewide recount. I believe this was a major PR mistake and the only fair way of doing it...I supported a statewide recount..
Similar threads
