Re: an excellent read from the ACLU

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike Benveniste, Sep 14, 2011.

  1. "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    news:jcb95q$r17$...
    >
    > "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>>If you get back that $100 that you sent in you paid zero.

    >>
    >> How do you function in society if you don't understand the impact of
    >> having your take-home pay reduced by $100 a month because you are
    >> loaning someone else $100 a month even if you eventually get that
    >> money back?

    >
    > I've yet to meet one of these mythical workers who pays zero income tax in any
    > case. Over here you pay income tax on any income over $6,000, and it's pretty
    > hard to live on <$6,000!
    > And that's STILL ignoring a hundred other taxes, levies, duties, excises,
    > surcharges etc. at federal state and local levels you still have to pay! :-(
    >
    > Trevor.


    Your "over here" is not the same as our "over here". It's a fact that almost
    50% of earners in the USA do not pay any federal income taxes. In New York
    State, 43% don't pay any state income tax.
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Dec 15, 2011
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    news:jcb7r2$o35$...
    >
    > "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> That "pay zero federal income taxes" is spin.

    >
    > Right.
    >>
    >> The bottom 50% of the wage earners loan the government money for
    >> twelve months of the year. If they're earning a wage, withholding is
    >> taken out. They may get back part or all of that money as a refund,
    >> but they don't have use of the money until the refund is received.

    >
    > If you think a small percentage get back ALL of their income tax payments, let
    > alone 50%, I've got a harbour bridge I'd like to sell you! :)
    > In fact it's more often the rich with the best accountants and miracle
    > accounting schemes that pay no income tax :-(


    You are mistaken. It's the IRS stats that show almost 50% of the earners do not
    pay federal income taxes. Look it up yourself unless you want to keep believing
    the mistaken notion that it's only a small percentage.
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Dec 15, 2011
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    news:jcb8lt$pvb$...
    >
    > "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:jcarg4$nc0$...
    >> On 13/12/2011 13:44, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    >>> Per my last post. The top 1% pay over 40% of all federal income taxes, the
    >>> top
    >>> 5% over 70% and te top 10% over 80%. You can take all of the money rich
    >>> people
    >>> have and it would not put a dent in the deficit because our federal
    >>> government
    >>> has an insatiable appetite to spend.

    >>
    >> You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes paid

    >
    > On available evidence he is too stupid to realise that!


    Don't act so childish and start resorting to insults. You obvioulsy don't want
    to engage in a discussion but would rather make insults.
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Dec 15, 2011
    #63
  4. "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:jcarg4$nc0$...
    > On 13/12/2011 13:44, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    >> "Trevor"<> wrote in message
    >> news:jc6cab$rvn$...
    >>>
    >>> "Pete Stavrakoglou"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:jc4unk$koj$...
    >>>>
    >>>> Greece is in the state it's in because of government spending, overly
    >>>> generous government benefits, lack of adequate tax collection,
    >>>
    >>> Dead right there, just as the US would be OK *IF* they actually collected
    >>> taxes from the rich and big corporations.
    >>> It's certainly not the poor where most of the money went in either country!
    >>>
    >>> Trevor.

    >>
    >> Per my last post. The top 1% pay over 40% of all federal income taxes, the
    >> top
    >> 5% over 70% and te top 10% over 80%. You can take all of the money rich
    >> people
    >> have and it would not put a dent in the deficit because our federal
    >> government
    >> has an insatiable appetite to spend.

    >
    > You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes paid -
    > and that still assumes the highest earners do not cheat.


    Nothing I stated is incorrect, if you have issue with that contact the IRS and
    engage them - it's their statistics. I am not confusing anything.

    > See for example the graph of top US marginal rate of taxation 1916-2010 and
    > you can quickly understand why the US is near bankrupt now.
    >
    > http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011/04/14/top-marginal-tax-rates-1916-2010/
    >
    > Or you can look at historical tax rates by income group
    >
    > http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/
    >
    > Left as an excercise for the reader to compute the actual tax take from each
    > sector.
    >
    > What is entirely certain is that your claim is total garbage.
    >
    > The present US system is geared to making the already super rich elite with
    > influence who can bribe politicians ever richer.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Martin Brown
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Dec 15, 2011
    #64
  5. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    >> On 13/12/2011 13:44, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Per my last post. The top 1% pay over 40% of all federal income taxes, the
    >>> top
    >>> 5% over 70% and te top 10% over 80%. You can take all of the money rich
    >>> people
    >>> have and it would not put a dent in the deficit because our federal
    >>> government
    >>> has an insatiable appetite to spend.

    >>
    >> You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes
    >> paid - and that still assumes the highest earners do not cheat.

    >
    > Even worse, he's wrong on the facts of the claim. The top 1% of income earners
    > in the US earn 24% of all income earned in the US. So you could run the
    > government quite nicely if you took all the rich folk's income.


    Regardless of how much they earn, they pay 40% of all federal income taxes
    collected. I am not wrong on those facts, despite what you have claimed.

    > The bottom 50%, on the other hand, earn so little money that you couldn't run
    > the government even if you took it all.


    Again, whatever amount they earn does not change the fact that they don't pay
    federal income taxes. Again, my statement was correct.

    >> See for example the graph of top US marginal rate of taxation 1916-2010 and
    >> you can quickly understand why the US is near bankrupt now.
    >>
    >> http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011/04/14/top-marginal-tax-rates-1916-2010/
    >>
    >> Or you can look at historical tax rates by income group
    >>
    >> http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/
    >>
    >> Left as an excercise for the reader to compute the actual tax take from each
    >> sector.
    >>
    >> What is entirely certain is that your claim is total garbage.
    >>
    >> The present US system is geared to making the already super rich elite with
    >> influence who can bribe politicians ever richer.

    >
    > Exactly.
    >
    > Simply returning high end tax rates to even GHWBush era levels would fix the
    > deficit instantly and easily. And simply dropping the cap on payroll taxes
    > would fix Social Security for ever.


    Right! Do you really think that increasing the amount of money collected will
    lower the deficit when the federal government is itching to spend more and more
    money? Until we have a President and a majority in the Senate who are commited
    to slashing spending it doesn't matter how much money they collect.

    > Medicare, however, is much much harder. (Making Medicare cover everyone and
    > charging a premium indexed to one's income tax payment would give us time to
    > work on the problems of medical care and costs. The stuff in PPACA other than
    > the insurance rules makes a good start on getting US medical costs under
    > control, though.)
    >
    > --
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Dec 15, 2011
    #65
  6. Mike Benveniste

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 15/12/2011 13:31, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    > "David J. Littleboy"<> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    >>> On 13/12/2011 13:44, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Per my last post. The top 1% pay over 40% of all federal income taxes, the
    >>>> top
    >>>> 5% over 70% and te top 10% over 80%. You can take all of the money rich
    >>>> people
    >>>> have and it would not put a dent in the deficit because our federal
    >>>> government
    >>>> has an insatiable appetite to spend.
    >>>
    >>> You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes
    >>> paid - and that still assumes the highest earners do not cheat.

    >>
    >> Even worse, he's wrong on the facts of the claim. The top 1% of income earners
    >> in the US earn 24% of all income earned in the US. So you could run the
    >> government quite nicely if you took all the rich folk's income.

    >
    > Regardless of how much they earn, they pay 40% of all federal income taxes
    > collected. I am not wrong on those facts, despite what you have claimed.


    You are absolutely clueless.
    >
    >> The bottom 50%, on the other hand, earn so little money that you couldn't run
    >> the government even if you took it all.

    >
    > Again, whatever amount they earn does not change the fact that they don't pay
    > federal income taxes. Again, my statement was correct.
    >
    >>> See for example the graph of top US marginal rate of taxation 1916-2010 and
    >>> you can quickly understand why the US is near bankrupt now.
    >>>
    >>> http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011/04/14/top-marginal-tax-rates-1916-2010/
    >>>
    >>> Or you can look at historical tax rates by income group
    >>>
    >>> http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/
    >>>
    >>> Left as an excercise for the reader to compute the actual tax take from each
    >>> sector.
    >>>
    >>> What is entirely certain is that your claim is total garbage.
    >>>
    >>> The present US system is geared to making the already super rich elite with
    >>> influence who can bribe politicians ever richer.

    >>
    >> Exactly.
    >>
    >> Simply returning high end tax rates to even GHWBush era levels would fix the
    >> deficit instantly and easily. And simply dropping the cap on payroll taxes
    >> would fix Social Security for ever.

    >
    > Right! Do you really think that increasing the amount of money collected will
    > lower the deficit when the federal government is itching to spend more and more
    > money? Until we have a President and a majority in the Senate who are commited
    > to slashing spending it doesn't matter how much money they collect.


    A teapot party dumber than a rock nutter foams at the mouth again.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Dec 15, 2011
    #66
  7. Mike Benveniste

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 15/12/2011 13:26, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    > "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:jcarg4$nc0$...
    >> On 13/12/2011 13:44, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    >>> "Trevor"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:jc6cab$rvn$...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Pete Stavrakoglou"<> wrote in message
    >>>> news:jc4unk$koj$...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Greece is in the state it's in because of government spending, overly
    >>>>> generous government benefits, lack of adequate tax collection,
    >>>>
    >>>> Dead right there, just as the US would be OK *IF* they actually collected
    >>>> taxes from the rich and big corporations.
    >>>> It's certainly not the poor where most of the money went in either country!
    >>>>
    >>>> Trevor.
    >>>
    >>> Per my last post. The top 1% pay over 40% of all federal income taxes, the
    >>> top
    >>> 5% over 70% and te top 10% over 80%. You can take all of the money rich
    >>> people
    >>> have and it would not put a dent in the deficit because our federal
    >>> government
    >>> has an insatiable appetite to spend.

    >>
    >> You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes paid -
    >> and that still assumes the highest earners do not cheat.

    >
    > Nothing I stated is incorrect, if you have issue with that contact the IRS and
    > engage them - it's their statistics. I am not confusing anything.


    I deduce that you cannot read or comprehend the information then.
    Lets see your evidence for this absurd claim!
    >
    >> See for example the graph of top US marginal rate of taxation 1916-2010 and
    >> you can quickly understand why the US is near bankrupt now.
    >>
    >> http://visualizingeconomics.com/2011/04/14/top-marginal-tax-rates-1916-2010/
    >>
    >> Or you can look at historical tax rates by income group
    >>
    >> http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/
    >>
    >> Left as an excercise for the reader to compute the actual tax take from each
    >> sector.
    >>
    >> What is entirely certain is that your claim is total garbage.
    >>
    >> The present US system is geared to making the already super rich elite with
    >> influence who can bribe politicians ever richer.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >> Martin Brown

    >
    >


    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Dec 15, 2011
    #67
  8. "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:jcct21$aa8$...
    > On 15/12/2011 13:31, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    >> "David J. Littleboy"<> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    >>>> On 13/12/2011 13:44, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Per my last post. The top 1% pay over 40% of all federal income taxes,
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> top
    >>>>> 5% over 70% and te top 10% over 80%. You can take all of the money rich
    >>>>> people
    >>>>> have and it would not put a dent in the deficit because our federal
    >>>>> government
    >>>>> has an insatiable appetite to spend.
    >>>>
    >>>> You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes
    >>>> paid - and that still assumes the highest earners do not cheat.
    >>>
    >>> Even worse, he's wrong on the facts of the claim. The top 1% of income
    >>> earners
    >>> in the US earn 24% of all income earned in the US. So you could run the
    >>> government quite nicely if you took all the rich folk's income.

    >>
    >> Regardless of how much they earn, they pay 40% of all federal income taxes
    >> collected. I am not wrong on those facts, despite what you have claimed.

    >
    > You are absolutely clueless.


    Perhaps you are. It's the IRS stats, not mine. If you have issue with those
    stas, take it up with them. Have a good day and try being nice to one person
    today, it might do your soul some good.
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Dec 15, 2011
    #68
  9. Mike Benveniste

    GMAN Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:07:09 GMT,
    >(GMAN) wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>, tony cooper

    > <> wrote:
    >>>On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:30:26 GMT,
    >>>(GMAN) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In article <>, tony cooper
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:09:59 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>>><> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>news:...
    >>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:17:09 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>news:...
    >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:41:46 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>"Trevor" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>news:jc6pnp$moj$...
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>> news:p...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>Governments do the buying with taxpayers money, taxpayers rarely

    > have
    >>>>> any
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>say in it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> The government employees who do the buying are, themselves,
    >>> taxpayers.
    >>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, they are sharing the burden more than many since they are
    >>>>>>>>>>>> employed - usually at rather good salaries
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> That's the problem, it's not their money they waste, and they

    > usually
    >>>>> have
    >>>>>>>>>>> a
    >>>>>>>>>>> far better life style than many others.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>and paying income taxes, property taxes, and taxes on purchases.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Which is why they love flat taxes so much. The old days of

    > progressive
    >>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> taxes
    >>>>>>>>>>> where those who could afford it actually paid more, are just about
    >>> gone
    >>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately. The new paradigm is the richer you are, the better

    > the
    >>>>>>>>>>> accountant you can afford, shelf companies you can set up, family
    >>> trusts
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> you
    >>>>>>>>>>> can utilise, off shore tax havens you can register, and the less tax
    >>> you
    >>>>>>>>>>> actually pay. The tax burdon now falls almost entirely on the middle
    >>>>> class
    >>>>>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>>>>> poorest members of the community because they have no ability to
    >>> escape
    >>>>>>>>>>> it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Trevor.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>Your claim tha the burden falls on the middle class is wrong. 40% of
    >>> all
    >>>>>>>>>>federal income taxes are paid by the top 1%, the top 5% pay over 70%

    > of
    >>>>> all
    >>>>>>>>>>federal income taxes, the top 10% pay over 80% of all federal income
    >>>>> taxes.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> The validity of the claim depends on what you think "the burden"
    >>>>>>>>> means. If you consider that the group paying the highest percentage
    >>>>>>>>> of all income taxes paid has the burden, then the statement is wrong.
    >>>>>>>>> If you consider that the group paying out the highest percentage of
    >>>>>>>>> their income has the burden, then the statement is correct.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>There's no obfuscating on this. The "rich" pay their fair share while

    > the
    >>>>>>>>bottom 50% of income earners pay zero federal income taxes. The top 10%
    >>> of
    >>>>>>>>earners are shouldering the tax burden for 80% of the country. That is
    >>>>> quite
    >>>>>>>>a
    >>>>>>>>"burden" no matter how you try to spin it.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Speaking of spin...the original statement deals with the middle class.
    >>>>>>> What you have pointed out is that the *bottom* 50% of the wage earners
    >>>>>>> pay no taxes.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>I pointed out a lot more than that and I'm not the one trying to spin this
    >>> one
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Tony, you are.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>That "pay zero federal income taxes" is spin.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>The bottom 50% of the wage earners loan the government money for
    >>>>>twelve months of the year. If they're earning a wage, withholding is
    >>>>>taken out. They may get back part or all of that money as a refund,
    >>>>>but they don't have use of the money until the refund is received.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Also "spin" is "fair share".
    >>>>
    >>>>If they get it all back, then they paid "NO" taxes!
    >>>
    >>>Like most things in this area, it depends on your viewpoint. If you
    >>>loan someone $100 a month for twelve months, and then get that money
    >>>back in the thirteenth month, you are out of pocket from $100 to
    >>>$1,200 during the year. The person you loan the money to has the use
    >>>of that money for the twelve months.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>If you get back that $100 that you sent in you paid zero.

    >
    >Not so. You paid whatever interest you might have earned on the cash
    >stream as it accumulated over the year to $1200. The government
    >received a similar (although not necessarily identical) benefit.
    >
    >Regards,
    >
    >Eric Stevens


    I'd sure like to know where on this earth one can deposit $100 into a bank and
    get back $1200 at the end of the year.
     
    GMAN, Dec 15, 2011
    #69
  10. Mike Benveniste

    GMAN Guest

    In article <jcb7r2$o35$>, "Trevor" <> wrote:
    >
    >"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> That "pay zero federal income taxes" is spin.

    >
    >Right.
    >>
    >> The bottom 50% of the wage earners loan the government money for
    >> twelve months of the year. If they're earning a wage, withholding is
    >> taken out. They may get back part or all of that money as a refund,
    >> but they don't have use of the money until the refund is received.

    >
    >If you think a small percentage get back ALL of their income tax payments,
    >let alone 50%, I've got a harbour bridge I'd like to sell you! :)
    >In fact it's more often the rich with the best accountants and miracle
    >accounting schemes that pay no income tax :-(
    >
    >Trevor.
    >
    >


    Occupy much?


    May get back all of their income taxes plus thousands in Earned Income Credit
    and Child Tax credit paymments that they didnt pay into the syste,. Tell US
    again why my taxes from income that me and my wife endlessly work hard for go
    to some fucktard and his wife who endlessly pop out kids?????
     
    GMAN, Dec 15, 2011
    #70
  11. Mike Benveniste

    Trevor Guest

    "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    news:jccs4h$o58$...
    > Your "over here" is not the same as our "over here". It's a fact that
    > almost 50% of earners in the USA do not pay any federal income taxes. In
    > New York State, 43% don't pay any state income tax.


    Well there's your deficit problem solved. :)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 15, 2011
    #71
  12. Mike Benveniste

    Trevor Guest

    "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    news:jccsfa$pr3$...
    >>> You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes
    >>> paid

    >>
    >> On available evidence he is too stupid to realise that!

    >
    > Don't act so childish and start resorting to insults. You obvioulsy don't
    > want to engage in a discussion but would rather make insults.


    YOU refer to "IRS stats" but provide links to marginal tax rates, so what
    are we to think?

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 15, 2011
    #72
  13. Mike Benveniste

    Trevor Guest

    "GMAN" <> wrote in message
    news:vnrGq.241714$1.easynews.com...
    > May get back all of their income taxes plus thousands in Earned Income
    > Credit
    > and Child Tax credit paymments that they didnt pay into the syste,. Tell
    > US
    > again why my taxes from income that me and my wife endlessly work hard for
    > go
    > to some fucktard and his wife who endlessly pop out kids?????


    As I already said, I disagree with all the support payments paid to promote
    more over-population, to both poor AND rich!!!!

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Dec 15, 2011
    #73
  14. Mike Benveniste

    PeterN Guest

    On 12/15/2011 1:48 PM, GMAN wrote:
    > In article<>, Eric Stevens<> wrote:




    <> snip>
    >


    > I'd sure like to know where on this earth one can deposit $100 into a bank and
    > get back $1200 at the end of the year.


    How much are you willing to pay for that information?

    In overall context my guess is that Eric meant to show a payment of $100
    a month for one year.

    Although the interest rate is high, that is not important to Eric's point.

    Although you will not believe it, there are some investments that
    approach that yield.
    You may do your own yield to maturity calculation here:
    <http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/financial/present-value.php>



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Dec 15, 2011
    #74
  15. Mike Benveniste

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:48:21 GMT,
    (GMAN) wrote:

    >In article <>, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:07:09 GMT,
    >>(GMAN) wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <>, tony cooper

    >> <> wrote:
    >>>>On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:30:26 GMT,
    >>>>(GMAN) wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>In article <>, tony cooper
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 08:09:59 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>>>><> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>news:...
    >>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:17:09 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>"tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>news:...
    >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:41:46 -0500, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
    >>>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>"Trevor" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>>news:jc6pnp$moj$...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>>> news:p...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Governments do the buying with taxpayers money, taxpayers rarely

    >> have
    >>>>>> any
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>say in it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> The government employees who do the buying are, themselves,
    >>>> taxpayers.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, they are sharing the burden more than many since they are
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> employed - usually at rather good salaries
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> That's the problem, it's not their money they waste, and they

    >> usually
    >>>>>> have
    >>>>>>>>>>>> a
    >>>>>>>>>>>> far better life style than many others.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>and paying income taxes, property taxes, and taxes on purchases.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Which is why they love flat taxes so much. The old days of

    >> progressive
    >>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> taxes
    >>>>>>>>>>>> where those who could afford it actually paid more, are just about
    >>>> gone
    >>>>>>>>>>>> unfortunately. The new paradigm is the richer you are, the better

    >> the
    >>>>>>>>>>>> accountant you can afford, shelf companies you can set up, family
    >>>> trusts
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> you
    >>>>>>>>>>>> can utilise, off shore tax havens you can register, and the less tax
    >>>> you
    >>>>>>>>>>>> actually pay. The tax burdon now falls almost entirely on the middle
    >>>>>> class
    >>>>>>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>>>>>> poorest members of the community because they have no ability to
    >>>> escape
    >>>>>>>>>>>> it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>Your claim tha the burden falls on the middle class is wrong. 40% of
    >>>> all
    >>>>>>>>>>>federal income taxes are paid by the top 1%, the top 5% pay over 70%

    >> of
    >>>>>> all
    >>>>>>>>>>>federal income taxes, the top 10% pay over 80% of all federal income
    >>>>>> taxes.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> The validity of the claim depends on what you think "the burden"
    >>>>>>>>>> means. If you consider that the group paying the highest percentage
    >>>>>>>>>> of all income taxes paid has the burden, then the statement is wrong.
    >>>>>>>>>> If you consider that the group paying out the highest percentage of
    >>>>>>>>>> their income has the burden, then the statement is correct.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>There's no obfuscating on this. The "rich" pay their fair share while

    >> the
    >>>>>>>>>bottom 50% of income earners pay zero federal income taxes. The top 10%
    >>>> of
    >>>>>>>>>earners are shouldering the tax burden for 80% of the country. That is
    >>>>>> quite
    >>>>>>>>>a
    >>>>>>>>>"burden" no matter how you try to spin it.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Speaking of spin...the original statement deals with the middle class.
    >>>>>>>> What you have pointed out is that the *bottom* 50% of the wage earners
    >>>>>>>> pay no taxes.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>I pointed out a lot more than that and I'm not the one trying to spin this
    >>>> one
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Tony, you are.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>That "pay zero federal income taxes" is spin.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>The bottom 50% of the wage earners loan the government money for
    >>>>>>twelve months of the year. If they're earning a wage, withholding is
    >>>>>>taken out. They may get back part or all of that money as a refund,
    >>>>>>but they don't have use of the money until the refund is received.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Also "spin" is "fair share".
    >>>>>
    >>>>>If they get it all back, then they paid "NO" taxes!
    >>>>
    >>>>Like most things in this area, it depends on your viewpoint. If you
    >>>>loan someone $100 a month for twelve months, and then get that money
    >>>>back in the thirteenth month, you are out of pocket from $100 to
    >>>>$1,200 during the year. The person you loan the money to has the use
    >>>>of that money for the twelve months.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>If you get back that $100 that you sent in you paid zero.

    >>
    >>Not so. You paid whatever interest you might have earned on the cash
    >>stream as it accumulated over the year to $1200. The government
    >>received a similar (although not necessarily identical) benefit.
    >>
    >>Regards,
    >>
    >>Eric Stevens

    >
    >I'd sure like to know where on this earth one can deposit $100 into a bank and
    >get back $1200 at the end of the year.
    >


    If you read what is written above, you will see that the example has
    someone paying in $100 per month. A year later, the paid-in amount is
    $1,200.

    If the paying-in is done to a bank, the $1,200 can be withdrawn
    provided that the Republicans who are against all regulations that
    impede businesses don't do something that allows banks to fail and
    depositors to lose their money.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Dec 15, 2011
    #75
  16. Mike Benveniste

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:54:22 -0500, PeterN
    <> wrote:

    >On 12/15/2011 1:48 PM, GMAN wrote:
    >> In article<>, Eric Stevens<> wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    ><> snip>
    >>

    >
    >> I'd sure like to know where on this earth one can deposit $100 into a bank and
    >> get back $1200 at the end of the year.

    >
    >How much are you willing to pay for that information?
    >
    >In overall context my guess is that Eric meant to show a payment of $100
    >a month for one year.
    >
    >Although the interest rate is high, that is not important to Eric's point.
    >
    >Although you will not believe it, there are some investments that
    >approach that yield.
    >You may do your own yield to maturity calculation here:
    > <http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/financial/present-value.php>


    Wha? You pay in $100 a month for 12 months and at the end of the year
    you have $1,200 in the bank. No interest at all has been paid. The
    $100 x 12 was stated in the post GMAN responded to.

    You'll be lucky, of course, to have $1,200 because the banks want to
    impose fees on the balance.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Dec 15, 2011
    #76
  17. Mike Benveniste

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 15/12/2011 21:25, Trevor wrote:
    > "Pete Stavrakoglou"<> wrote in message
    > news:jccsfa$pr3$...
    >>>> You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes
    >>>> paid
    >>>
    >>> On available evidence he is too stupid to realise that!

    >>
    >> Don't act so childish and start resorting to insults. You obvioulsy don't
    >> want to engage in a discussion but would rather make insults.

    >
    > YOU refer to "IRS stats" but provide links to marginal tax rates, so what
    > are we to think?


    It would insult two short planks to compare his intelligence with them.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Dec 16, 2011
    #77
  18. "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    news:jcdoft$rpn$...
    >
    > "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    > news:jccs4h$o58$...
    >> Your "over here" is not the same as our "over here". It's a fact that almost
    >> 50% of earners in the USA do not pay any federal income taxes. In New York
    >> State, 43% don't pay any state income tax.

    >
    > Well there's your deficit problem solved. :)
    >
    > Trevor.


    We have a deficit problem in New York State for the same reason we have one as a
    nation. Our governments spend too much. Income is not the problem, spending
    is.
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Dec 16, 2011
    #78
  19. "Trevor" <> wrote in message
    news:jcdoj9$s2q$...
    >
    > "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    > news:jccsfa$pr3$...
    >>>> You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes
    >>>> paid
    >>>
    >>> On available evidence he is too stupid to realise that!

    >>
    >> Don't act so childish and start resorting to insults. You obvioulsy don't
    >> want to engage in a discussion but would rather make insults.

    >
    > YOU refer to "IRS stats" but provide links to marginal tax rates, so what are
    > we to think?
    >
    > Trevor.


    Check the last chart here http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table7
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Dec 16, 2011
    #79
  20. "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:jcf12v$8pu$...
    > On 15/12/2011 21:25, Trevor wrote:
    >> "Pete Stavrakoglou"<> wrote in message
    >> news:jccsfa$pr3$...
    >>>>> You appear to be confusing marginal rates of taxation with actual taxes
    >>>>> paid
    >>>>
    >>>> On available evidence he is too stupid to realise that!
    >>>
    >>> Don't act so childish and start resorting to insults. You obvioulsy don't
    >>> want to engage in a discussion but would rather make insults.

    >>
    >> YOU refer to "IRS stats" but provide links to marginal tax rates, so what
    >> are we to think?

    >
    > It would insult two short planks to compare his intelligence with them.
    >
    > Regards,
    > Martin Brown


    Brilliant response Martin! you're one of those typical internet bullies that's
    real brave as long as you have a keyboard to hide behind. In real life, you're
    most likely a coward who doesn't have the guts to talk like this to someone in
    person. I'd welcome the opportunity but you wouldn't avail yourself, I;'m sure.
     
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Dec 16, 2011
    #80
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Biz
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    844
  2. tony cooper
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    616
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Feb 12, 2010
  3. Mike

    ACLU: Know Your Rights: Photographers

    Mike, Sep 9, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    315
    PeterN
    Sep 21, 2011
  4. Robert Coe

    Re: an excellent read from the ACLU

    Robert Coe, Sep 10, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    260
    ASCII
    Sep 11, 2011
  5. Robert Coe

    Re: an excellent read from the ACLU

    Robert Coe, Sep 15, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    298
    Robert Coe
    Sep 30, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page