Teh reagan is not happy

[Sava]

you can check the rates, if you don't trust that source, here:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?topic2id=30

this source is from the Brookings Institute

it doesn't have a page where I can cut and paste the rates, year by year

but it has individual pages where you can look and see the individual rates by year

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Why do you envy those who have made their success when in fact they actually are providing the lion share of all taxes garnered for the governement at a rate that actually increases over the years

But their rate hasn't increased over the years, as your link actually shows in Table 8:

Average tax rate 1980 (2003)

Top 1% - 34.47% (24.31%)
Top 5% - 26.85% (20.74%)
Top 50% - 17.29% (13.35%)
Bottom 50% - 6.10% (2.95%)

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Again who gives a flip regarding tax rates per level. The real thing is dollars paid to the system. In that measure the bottom 50% have been paying less than ever and the top money earners are paying more dollars than ever. Case closed.

[Sava]

also... when looking at these numbers, remember to think of inflation... $200,000 in 1980 dollars is not the same as $200,000 in 2005 dollars.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i dont understand why some politician doesnt decide to get rid of all taxes on the lower 50% of the income group. now that would be a meaningful tax cut.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Again who gives a flip regarding tax rates per level. The real thing is dollars paid to the system. In that measure the bottom 50% have been paying less than ever and the top money earners are paying more dollars than ever. Case closed.

Do you think that matters to people?

What matters to people is how much of someone's paycheck is going to the government.

You can distort the numbers all you want. They are "paying more" because they are MAKING MORE.

I'm sure that's a comfort to people who are barely getting by, living paycheck to paycheck.

But they are all living like that because they are all lazy right? That's what Republicans and conservatives believe right?

[Sava]

I think Ogie needs a basic math lesson.


70% > 35%

1980 tax rate for top tax bracket = 70
2005 tax rate for top tax bracket = 35

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Kontiki


But their rate hasn't increased over the years, as your link actually shows in Table 8:

Average tax rate 1980 (2003)

Top 1% - 34.47% (24.31%)
Top 5% - 26.85% (20.74%)
Top 50% - 17.29% (13.35%)
Bottom 50% - 6.10% (2.95%)

You misunderstand my meaning. Top1% pay today at 24.31% rates verses the shlubs at either 13.35% or 2.95%. Me I'ld rather have a buunch more folk paying at 24.31% than run the greater deficits by having a bunch more in the 13.35 to 2.95% paying brackets.

Forget what nominal rates have done. The reality is the dollars flowing in by income level.

Point is we should encourage success not be envious of it.

[Kidlicious]

Don't forget about Reagan's investment tax credit. Yeah, let's just tax the poor and give it to the rich.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Point is we should encourage success not be envious of it.

and you encourage success by burdening the people who are having no success?

explain this to me now?

wouldn't it be better if we tax the people who can afford it, and help the people who can't afford it create success?

i.e. the strong carrying the weak


I mean, we don't send the old people and children to fight wars do we?

But that's basically what we are doing with our tax code. We are making the weakest people carry the burden, while the strong carry little or none.

How does this make any sense?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


You misunderstand my meaning. Top1% pay today at 24.31% rates verses the shlubs at either 13.35% or 2.95%. Me I'ld rather have a buunch more folk paying at 24.31% than run the greater deficits by having a bunch more in the 13.35 to 2.95% paying brackets.

Forget what nominal rates have done. The reality is the dollars flowing in by income level.

Point is we should encourage success not be envious of it.

No, I think you misunderstand your own meaning. Work the math out. The top 1% is always the top 1% - you can't add or subtract to the proportion of people from that bracket. What's changed is that the top 1% are now paying over 10% less of their incomes on average than they were in 1980. No other group has taken so large a cut.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Sava


Do you think that matters to people?

What matters to people is how much of someone's paycheck is going to the government.

You can distort the numbers all you want. They are "paying more" because they are MAKING MORE.

I'm sure that's a comfort to people who are barely getting by, living paycheck to paycheck.

But they are all living like that because they are all lazy right? That's what Republicans and conservatives believe right?

If thats the game you want to play then your foolish but even so average tax rate on bottom 50% people fell from 6.1% to 2.95%. Thats a 51.6% tax rate reduction.

Take a look at the top 1% earners their rate fell from 34.47% to 24.31% Thats a 29.5% tax rate reduction

Or maybe the top 5% earners their rate was 26.85% and in 2003 became 20.74% Thats a whopping 22.8% tax rate reduction.

Let look at the top 25% earners shall we, they went from 19.72% to 15.28%. How can they live with all themselves knowing the've got an incredible reductionin taxes of 22.5% tax rate reduction.

Face it the people barely getting by (i.e. the lower 50% income families) have by far and away gotten the largest breaks in rate as well as contribute the smallest amount in actual taxes collected and the trend continues.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Point is we should encourage success not be envious of it.

If people are already suceeding why do you have to encourage them.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Face it the people barely getting by (i.e. the lower 50% income families) have by far and away gotten the largest breaks in rate as well as contribute the smallest amount in actual taxes collected and the trend continues.

YEAH DUDE

POOR PEOPLE HAVE TOTALLY MADE OUT LIKE BANDITS

I WISH I WERE POOR

BEING POOR IS AWESOME




maybe you should take into account, inflation

the value of those dollars, etc...

and while the drop of 50% sounds like a lot

that money, the money someone making $10k a year is getting taxed, is a hell of a lot more important to that person than the money some CEO is getting taxed...

you are talking about maybe a few grand a year, but that is huge to someone who doesn't have a lot of money

whereas, a few million is peanuts to someone with $100 million

[Kidlicious]

Here's a good article about how the rich pay less than the marginal tax rates.

The Hidden Entitlements

Born in scandal during the Nixon administration and the cause of many tax scandals thereafter, accelerated depreciation now is the largest of all corporate tax loopholes. Technically, accelerated depreciation lets companies write off the costs of their machinery and buildings faster than they actually wear out. In practice, that means sharply lower tax bills for corporations and individuals that can take advantage of the tax breaks