|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|10-21-2003 11:48 PM|
NAK= nursing at keyboard. I put that to explain my lack of punctuation/capitalization
I do not actually know the % of total taxes paid by each social group (rich, middle class, poor, etc...) but I would be very interested to know. Given how many taxes that are regressive (property tax, sales tax, payroll taxes, etc...) and how few or progressive or stagnant (even the income tax, supposedly progressive often doesn't work that way because of available deducations). Because the rich are so very rich, I would not be surprised if they still paid a majority of the taxes, but as El's said, it would be interesting to *know.*
Now, this has gone fairly off basis and I think many definitions of "millionaire" are quite odd (though I did notice they didn't count retirement savings which means these people do have quite a chunk of change lying around), but the fact remains: the devide between the have and the have nots is a veritable chasm at this point. I don't know how to do it, but this country needs to make some serious decisions about what people "deserve" simply for being born in such a wealth country and what divide is acceptable and what divide is not). I, personally think that we need to INCREASE inheiratance tax (well, actually *decrease* the levels at which it kicks in and make it graduated), increase the level of mandatory social programs (health care, housing, and the like), mandate a floor for payroll taxes, increase the tax current top tax rates & add additional tiers (for example, if you make over $500K 40%, over $1mil 50% etc...).
Theres my rant and I'm sticking to it.
|10-21-2003 11:43 PM|
|mom2mmmh||NAK - Something you can't do, LOL! Nursing at keyboard|
|10-21-2003 10:42 PM|
My apologies but I am not up on all the abbreviations so I'm gonna ask.
|10-21-2003 09:51 PM|
|Els' 3 Ones||
WG, I said please *do* call me a flaming liberal. I am proud of it.
I was addressing the post which defended the millionaires (which, ftr, I don't think means the 1 million mark in asessts anymore. It is 2x that or more these days dontcha think?) ......... That post said millionaires pay most of the taxes. I said no. I stand by that. Most of ALL TAXES are paid in the middle class. Percentage wise they are screwed.
Here is what Warren Buffet thought abt the tax cut, note what he currently pays vs his receptionist:
|10-21-2003 06:32 PM|
El-- I never said it was "fair" that people earned more money than others. (That's a whole other issue.) I just was pointing out that the middle class does not shoulder the majority of the tax burden. I understand your point, and won't call you a flaming liberal, as long as you don't call me a heartless conservative.
Tiredx2-- I am confused by your point. Are you saying that the rich pay less $ wise in payroll taxes than the working poor? (Yes I know they pay less percentage-wise, because it's capped.) Also, how can the working poor pay moreproperty taxes than the rich if they don't own any property?
And since conservative links have been posted first by a liberal on this thread:
|10-21-2003 06:11 PM|
lets not forget that most people pay more in payrole taxes than in income taxes. and how bout ptoperty taxes which are completely passed on to the working poor in many cases?
|10-21-2003 03:56 PM|
What you need to look at is not the "personal" taxes of the "extremely" wealthy, but the taxes the businesses they own whole or part of get out of paying completely. The corporate welfare system allows these people to , for the most part to be rich and get richer.
General statements are a good thing. If the "generalization" does not apply to you personally, don't take it personal. If you have that point of view it is just as "wrong" to make the generalization that all millionaires got their money from being frugal and old fashioned hard work.
My grandpa said, "A millionaire is a person that screwed 10,000 good people out of $100 and never looked back."
It is impossible to make an exact statement when referring to a group of people. No matter what you say, it will apply to some and not to others. Discernment is the key to wisdom and understanding. Try it.
|10-21-2003 03:42 PM|
|10-21-2003 03:39 PM|
I tried to delete the multiple posts but for some reason I can't
|10-21-2003 03:37 PM|
|10-21-2003 03:17 PM|
|Els' 3 Ones||
Also depends on definition of "taxes". I'm speaking of all our taxes, not just fed. And on all our income, not just wages.
According to :Rush Limabaugh's site (*gasp* I've had this pissing contest B4 - someone used this to root for the tax cut!)
The top 10% earn 43% (close to 50%, eh?) of ALL the income and pay 65% of income tax-----I'd love to see what they pay in total tax percentage wise.
Also, the bottom 50% earn just under 14% of ALL the income and pay just under 4% of income tax-----ya know, if I were one of the 50% that had to divvy up 14% of the income (think about it, how much are they making?) I wouldn't want to pay 4% in income taxes! I know that this group's total tax percentage is higher that that top 10%.
Call me a flaming liberal (please) but, damn, it just does not seem unfair to me!! What am I missing here?
|10-21-2003 01:40 PM|
Looks like the top 5% of federal filers paid 53.3% of the taxes in 2001.
Oh, and the book The Millionaire Next Door is a fascinating read.
|10-21-2003 01:20 PM|
|Els' 3 Ones||
The middle class.
|10-21-2003 10:07 AM|
We live in a country where it is possible for ANYONE to become a millionaire, provided they are willing to get an education and work their butts off. And no, this does not mean trampling over the little guy. Most millionaires get that way by support, not by trampling. While there are those for whom money turns them into wackos, the majority of wealthy people are not spending it as fast as they get it, and you may not even know you have a millionaire next door! In fact, there is an excellent book called The Millionaire Next Door - here is an excerpt:
"How can you join the ranks of America's wealthy (defined as people whose net worth is over one million dollars)? It's easy, say doctors Stanley and Danko, who have spent the last 20 years interviewing members of this elite club: you just have to follow seven simple rules. The first rule is, always live well below your means. The last rule is, choose your occupation wisely."
Not all millionaires are CEO's, Movie Stars and politicians (politicians don't make very much money anyway). My grandparents are millionaires and my grandfather was a paper salesman, and my grandmother was a nurse - they never made a ton of money. They live in a small house, drive an older car, and have saved all their lives. They certainly live below their means. I have dear friends who are millionaires. He owns a small business and makes around $80,000 a year. He drives a 1987 Toyota pickup truck. They live in a modest home and have an old TV and stereo equipment - with a turntable! They save and live below their means.
Broad generalizations are not only ignorant, they are dangerous.
|10-21-2003 05:22 AM|
|Curandera||Maybe I don't understand the article, but I got the impression that a 14% rise since 2002 was extreme - and considering the rise in poverty also during that time, I get the impression that this isn't just "same ol' same ol'". I think the extremes widening so rapidly does have to do with a republican being in office. Weren't there statistics somewhere where during the previous administration the gape was drawing closer? I've no problem with the number of millionares getting higher - but when it appears to do so at the cost of the middle class - who slips into poverty - then I grow concerned.|
|10-17-2003 04:59 PM|
And it didn't abate under Clinton. It just keeps increasing.
|10-17-2003 04:37 PM|
|artemesia||Well, I sure am glad to hear that as my family has dipped below the poverty level, all that money has gone to a good cause:|
|10-17-2003 04:31 PM|
|Curandera||I also think it is no surprise that this record rise of millionaries and of the poverty level - occured with a republican in office.|
|10-17-2003 04:09 PM|
|Marg of Arabia||
Iam afraid so.........
|10-17-2003 03:46 PM|
What I find interesting is that this article reports that millionaires on the rise as if it's a good thing and as if all Americans can aspire to being millionaires.
At the same time, the article reports poverty is on the rise.
What does this mean? it means money is concentrating in the hands of a few families while most families are becomming poorer and poorer.
Millionaires make terrible neighbors. They try to buy their way out of the civic/democratic process. They put up fences to shut the riff-raff out of their neighborhoods. They trample over the little guy (that is to say, you) on their way to what they want. They might hire you to be a nanny or gardiner, but the new millionaires seem to have little sense of civic responsibility and don't donate much to libraries, parks, concert halls or other public works.
So what this article says between the lines is not that your chances of becomming a millionaire are increasing or that Americans are getting richer. What it says is that because of concentration of wealth there is less for you and more for someone else.
|10-17-2003 03:29 PM|
|Curandera||Article on rise of millionaires. I found it interesting to compare it to the other articles where I got this link: Geo Topics|