Oltz said:
You missed the point 1% was only $343,000 a year in AGI if you will not make that in dozens of lifetimes I am sorry to hear that. 10% was only 112K.
Even that doesn't work, because the top 1% still includes the top 0.001%, which are the ones making 100m+ a year, which will skew any data which includes them. I have missed no point. The important number is the number which you quoted, that the top 1% only pay 24% of their income in taxes. The least important number is what percentage of the total they paid.
Again you missed the point you need to compare percent paid to percent made.
No. That number is irrelevant for many reasons.
I think we should look at that ratio more I do not know what is the "right" number but it certainly is not fair for it to be even higher. currently the 1% make 17% of the money and pay 36 percent of the tax so a 36/17 = 2.11 (simple rounding. ) the bottom 50% pay 2.3% of the total taxes but make 13.5% of the AGI. 2.3/13.5 = 0.17 so for every "income unit" the 1% pay 2.11 "tax units" and the bottom 50% pay 0.17 "tax units" per equal "income unit".
The numbers do not lie you tell me what is a fair relationship. That is a 12.4:1 relationship. What is fair?
Once again, this is an artifact of the great wealth disparity (and income disparity) in this country. Included in your bottom 50% are the 14.6% living below the poverty line [census.gov, 2009 stats]. Many of those living above the poverty line are quite close to it. For you to claim that poor people are given "unfair" tax advantages is incredibly absurd. Every single one of those in the bottom 50% DREAM of one day being taxed at "unfair" rates.
Correct but people are allowed to be rich you could tax the top 1% at 100% and we would still be running a defecit in less then a month.
Nobody once said that people aren't allowed to be rich. If you're reduced to attacking such unbelievable strawmen, perhaps you should quit now. I also never said that taxes alone would balance the budget. In fact, if you had bothered to read my post, you would have seen where I said both tax increases and spending cuts are needed.
I am fine with increasing revenue temproraily acorss a broad base the problem is every "temporary" tax raise in history that was supposed to have cuts with it has happened and then the cuts never come. Make the cuts first so I believe you will actually do it then ask me for more money.
Why raise taxes across a broad base? How about you raise taxes among those who can actually afford it, rather than raising taxes on lower-class families struggling to survive? And why should the tax increases be temporary? Top tax rates in this countries are the lowest they've been in decades, and wealth disparity in this country is greater than it has ever been in all of United States history.
Say we have reduced spending to these levels and the programs we have running will be sustainable. Now we would like to raise income for the next 2 decades to pay down our debt and then rates will reset to a fair level. The government has proven that if you give them money they will spend it on something new not use it to reduce anything.
You keep using the word "fair," but I suspect you have a rather twisted definition of that word.
Jack how is SS rate cuts are silly not a specific comment? How is the pay into pay out ratio of greater the 5:1 not a specific problem? How is saying we need to narrow the target of people who are entitled to these entitlements not a specific solution ?
I think you may have reading comprehension problems when you are ready to actually read the words and not just make blanket statements about regurgitating I would like to know your opinions on what is fair and how to prevent entitlments from bankrupting this country in 25 years no matter what the tax rates are.
You are confusing the issue by rolling many different programs under the label "entitlements." Unemployment, food stamps, welfare, medicare, and social security are all VERY DIFFERENT programs, with different benefits, targeting different people, and each with their own problems.
You mentioned no specifics in any of those in your post. You DID NOT SAY anything about a 5:1 pay into pay out ratio in your post, yet you're accusing me of a lack of reading comprehension? Read your own post, and point out where you said anything about that. Even in your clarification you aren't being specific. You said we need to "narrow the target of people" who are entitled to "these entitlements." Which entitlements? Who is qualifying for which entitlements who don't deserve them, and how do you propose they change it?
THOSE would be specific answers. Instead, you drone on about how it's not "fair" that "those people" are getting "those entitlements." These aren't specifics. They are talking points.
