On October 24 the Joint Economic Committee released the latest IRS data for 2000. Here’s the table:

> Top 1%: Adjusted Gross Income of more than 3,469, pays 37.42 percent of all income tax collected

> Top 5%: 8,336, pays 56.47 percent

> Top 10%: ,144, pays 67.33 percent

> Top 25%: ,225, pays 84.01 percent

> Top 50%: ,682, pays 96.09 percent

> Bottom 50%: less than ,682, pays a mere 3.91 percent

What we get from the left is whining and complaining without justification. They aren't the ones pulling the wagon. They're riding in the wagon while bitching and moaning all the way.

The left is irrelvant. They should move to Cuba where they'd fit in.

If their rich, they have more money. They have more to be taxed.

They also get better services- better schools, better roads, bettter police, favorable courts.

Whats your beef?

and use no money- does a person have the right to not use money?

or couse they do- the funny thing is that people have never had the right to use money in the first place, but we forgive ourselves our naivities and accept the responsibility of being humble.

What is the proportion of taxes paid by those on the bottom (say, under ,000 per anum.)? Include such lofty issues as payroll taxes, gasoline taxes, taxes on sundries (all the shit you wear, sleep on, and use to make your cubicle-apartment look less boring), taxes on consumibles (not liquor - but virtually everything you buy at the grocery store), etc., etc. What then is the proportion of taxes paid by those "lazy do-nothings" who try to eke out a living vs. the actual take-home pay they have AFTER all those "hidden" but oh-so-burdonsome taxes are included? Just curious, but i think it's pretty apparent that those on the bottom see a great deal of their hard-earned money disappear rather quickly through taxes other than those directly assessed by Uncle Sam April 15.

Irrelevant, Marc. We all have to pay the regressive taxes which don’t take into account our ability to pay them. If I buy a Snickers bar it will cost me the same as it would cost Bill Gates. If Mr. Gates and I have the same appetite for Snickers bars over the course of a year, we will pay the same amount in taxes. Come April 15th, however, Mr. Gates will be paying MILLIONS of dollars, while I will pay a couple of hundred, or perhaps even get a couple of hundred back. Your hard-scrabble friends don’t pay a cent in income taxes, and their contributions through the year towards other taxes are a tear in a salted sea when compared to the taxes paid by the wealthy.

If you dislike such things as the gasoline tax, payroll tax, taxes on sundries etc then I suggest you vote for those of a more Libertarian bent. The Democratic Party is the one imposing these high taxes, and is actively planning their expansion.

Nice chart (seriously, its informative.)



Damn, we pay a lot of money.

I bet rich folk pay even more because they have more to be taxed. The one thing is, as I said before, the rich get better services for the more money they pay. I would definitely pay into a system that I got something out of, but I definitely see a lot of our tax money going to waste.

And that family of 4 earning 43,000 a year. They must be scrambling to get by, probably working long hours and living in not the best neighborhood and not the best schools. Waste seems to abound in the system.

But, what do you think this means, and why do you think this is actually contreversial material on this list? Or is it just informative, which it is- thank you very much.

That's actually a sunstantive and informative display of information. And to S.S., I didn't mean to infer that somehow the burden was more for people lower on the scale, only that proportionately, they have less money to spare, and those nickles (and dimes, and quarters, etc.) add up real quick. I myself am not a Democrat, nor Republican, and actually see it as quite ludicrous that we tax the rich more based on what they make. This gets me out of favor with a lot of folk that i agree with on almost every other social issue, but it seems to penalize people for making more money. There are other (valid) ways to assess taxes. I would be more in favor of some nominal "citizen" tax. A flat tax actually would be detrimental, but there should be a more practical and sensible approach to taxation. Just to pick one, the Federal income Tax was intended to bulk up the War Chest for WWII, but after realizing the cash cow in hand, the government renegged on their promise. I'm not in favor of removing this tax (as there are good purposes for them), but unfortunately there is so much pork going around (not just Defence contractors - though they are the prime offenders) that the real things that should be taken to the utmost in a civilized society (yes, universal healthcare, and first-notch education should be in the top three) are left wanting, or begging for scraps as other budgets increase.

I just know that if someone is making k and getting taxed (all told) roughly 1/3 or more of that, it pinches HARDER than someone like, say, Bill gates, who has the resources to employ the finest tax attorneys (who direct him towards the most beneficial spending of his dearth of wealth), which helps him to relieve his tax burden. Yes, he philanthropically spends his money on numerous worthwhile causes, but they are all tax-exempt, and that furthers the point. I wouldn't want to penalyze him for being successful (at making an onerous operating system stolen from another o.s. lifted from another o.s.), but at the same time I'm not in favor of essentially establishing the Third Estate and allowing for the robber barons and landed aristocracy. That would lead to outright class-warfare. There must be some ground in the middle which could keep the wheels of government running (& how they can vote themselves a raise while the economy is performing ill is an affront!), while lifting some of the burden on the lowest brackets so that the possibility of leaving that bracket (through savings, investment, etc.) can be realized.

Just some thoughts...

Simple Simon shows his simple logic and comprehension -- once again.

The top 1% of the income earners in the United States reap over 90% of the income produced in the United States.  Taxing that income at 10 or 20 percent overall, after factoring the various shelters these ultra rich make use of, results in the ~37% figure quoted.  There's no freeloading going on here, just a distortion of statistics achieved by how one frames those statistics.

Math test at 3pm class

One of the other ways the math on all these issues gets fucked up is the fact that there's no real accounting effort made for anyone in that 1%-on-up section of the population.  

In any event, Bush Admirer and Simple Simon will continue to be confused.  Bush Admirer definitely gets one thing correct above, however.  Everyone indeed gets screwed.  But maybe one of theses days the guy will stop spending so god damn much time entertaining himself with attacks on leftists and more time just looking at the raw numbers, raw information.  I'm not a raving leftist.  There's some good qualities about capitalism.  But there are real problems too.  

 

The Super Rich Are Out of Sight

by Michael Parenti

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1227-06.htm

The super rich, the less than 1 percent of the population who own the lion's share of the nation's wealth, go uncounted in most income distribution reports. Even those who purport to study the question regularly overlook the very wealthiest among us. For instance, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, relying on the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, released a report in December 1997 showing that in the last two decades "incomes of the richest fifth increased by 30 percent or nearly ,000 after adjusting for inflation." The average income of the top 20 percent was 7,500, or almost 13 times larger than the ,250 average income of the poorest 20 percent.

But where are the super rich? An average of 7,500 is an upper-middle income, not at all representative of a rich cohort, let alone a super rich one. All such reports about income distribution are based on U.S. Census Bureau surveys that regularly leave Big Money out of the picture. A few phone calls to the Census Bureau in Washington D.C. revealed that for years the bureau never interviewed anyone who had an income higher than 0,000. Or if interviewed, they were never recorded as above the "reportable upper limit" of 0,000, the top figure allowed by the bureau's computer program. In 1994, the bureau lifted the upper limit to million. This still excludes the very richest who own the lion's share of the wealth, the hundreds of billionaires and thousands of multimillionaires who make many times more than million a year. The super rich simply have been computerized out of the picture.

When asked why this procedure was used, an official said that the Census Bureau's computers could not handle higher amounts. A most improbable excuse, since once the bureau decided to raise the upper limit from 0,000 to million it did so without any difficulty, and it could do so again. Another reason the official gave was "confidentiality." Given place coordinates, someone with a very high income might be identified. Furthermore, he said, high-income respondents usually understate their investment returns by about 40 to 50 percent. Finally, the official argued that since the super rich are so few, they are not likely to show up in a national sample.

But by designating the (decapitated) top 20 percent of the entire nation as the "richest" quintile, the Census Bureau is including millions of people who make as little as ,000. If you make over 0,000, you are in the top 4 percent. Now 0,000 is a tidy sum indeed, but it's not super rich--as in Mellon, Morgan, or Murdock. The difference between Michael Eisner, Disney CEO who pocketed 5 million in 1996, and the individuals who average ,250 is not 13 to 1--the reported spread between highest and lowest quintiles--but over 61,000 to 1.

Speaking of CEOs, much attention has been given to the top corporate managers who rake in tens of millions of dollars annually in salaries and perks. But little is said about the tens of billions that these same corporations distribute to the top investor class each year, again that invisible fraction of 1 percent of the population. Media publicity that focuses exclusively on a handful of greedy top executives conveniently avoids any exposure of the super rich as a class. In fact, reining in the CEOs who cut into the corporate take would well serve the big shareholder's interests.

Two studies that do their best to muddy our understanding of wealth, conducted respectively by the Rand Corporation and the Brookings Institution and widely reported in the major media, found that individuals typically become rich not from inheritance but by maintaining their health and working hard. Most of their savings comes from their earnings and has nothing to do with inherited family wealth, the researchers would have us believe. In typical social-science fashion, they prefigured their findings by limiting the scope of their data. Both studies failed to note that achieving a high income is itself in large part due to inherited advantages. Those coming from upper-strata households have a far better opportunity to maintain their health and develop their performance, attend superior schools, and achieve the advanced professional training, contacts, and influence needed to land the higher paying positions.

More importantly, both the Rand and Brookings studies fail to include the super rich, those who sit on immense and largely inherited fortunes. Instead, the investigators concentrate on upper-middle-class professionals and managers, most of whom earn in the 0,000 to 0,000 range--which indicates that the researchers have no idea how rich the very rich really are.

When pressed on this point, they explain that there is a shortage of data on the very rich. Being such a tiny percentage, "they're an extremely difficult part of the population to survey," pleads Rand economist James P. Smith, offering the same excuse given by the Census Bureau officials. That Smith finds the super rich difficult to survey should not cause us to overlook the fact that their existence refutes his findings about self-earned wealth. He seems to admit as much when he says, "This [study] shouldn't be taken as a statement that the Rockefellers didn't give to their kids and the Kennedys didn't give to their kids." (New York Times, July 7, 1995) Indeed, most of the really big money is inherited--and by a portion of the population that is so minuscule as to be judged statistically inaccessible.

The higher one goes up the income scale, the greater the rate of capital accumulation. Economist Paul Krugman notes that not only have the top 20 percent grown more affluent compared with everyone below, the top 5 percent have grown richer compared with the next 15 percent. The top one percent have become richer compared with the next 4 percent. And the top 0.25 percent have grown richer than the next 0.75 percent. That top 0.25 owns more wealth than the other 99¾ percent combined. It has been estimated that if children's play blocks represented 00 each, over 98 percent of us would have incomes represented by piles of blocks that went not more than a few yards off the ground, while the top one percent would stack many times higher than the Eiffel Tower.

Marx's prediction about the growing gap between rich and poor still haunts the land--and the entire planet. The growing concentration of wealth creates still more poverty. As some few get ever richer, more people fall deeper into destitution, finding it increasingly difficult to emerge from it. The same pattern holds throughout much of the world. For years now, as the wealth of the few has been growing, the number of poor has been increasing at a faster rate than the earth's population. A rising tide sinks many boats.

To grasp the true extent of wealth and income inequality in the United States, we should stop treating the "top quintile"--the upper-middle class--as the "richest" cohort in the country. But to do that, we need to look beyond the Census Bureau's cooked statistics. We need to catch sight of that tiny, stratospheric apex that owns most of the world.

Michael Parenti is a noted author and political commentator. Among his widely read books are "The Terrorism Trap," "Democracy For the Few," "History as Mystery," and "Against Empire." His most recent forthcoming book is "The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome." For more information, visit his web site, www.michaelparenti.org.

Math is so full of crap. Why bother with your rediculous premise, Math? My statistics come directly from the IRS. Yours from your pea brain. Why not go for the whole enchilada? Next time say that the top three families of the Republican Party get 99% of all income generated and all the rest of America lives on sucking the dew out of old gym socks left on the grass. Your math is a joke.

Detailed State-by-State Tables

Discretionary Spending Under the Proposed Bush Administration Budget for FY2003

a lot of nice charts

try this

see also:

old but interesting network of links

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

There are times, Link, when I think you are just pulling my leg. There is no way you can trot out crap like this, let it fester under the sun and tell me you actually believe it.

OF COURSE the poor pay more AS A PERCENTAGE of their income when compared to the rich. This is because they don't make any money. This is why we call them POOR.

So I guess It's time to take you and 'Math' to school.

If you make 10,000 dollars a year, and I make 100,000 dollars a year, and we buy the exact same things and drive the same cars and smoke the same amount of cigarettes and consume the same amount of alcohol, your PERCENTAGE paid in taxes will be higher when compared to your income. This is called math.

When you look at the amount of MONEY being taken, however, the story changes dramatically. Let us suppose for the purpose of this exercise that we each pay 5,000 dollars in taxes on the items listed above. Keep in mind, we have bought the same things, flown on the same airlines, drank the same Mad Dog 20/20, etc.. This is 5,000 dollars from you and 5,000 dollars from me. But YOU will pay NOTHING in income taxes (now before you get silly, I know you actually DO pay income tax on every check, but the point is that at 10,000 dollars a year, you will receive it all back come tax time). I on the other hand will pay approximently 30,000 dollars in income taxes (between Federal, State, and Local)- three times your total income. When the percentages are run - you will be out 50% of your income with 5,000 dollars paid in taxes while I will be out ONLY 35% of mine with 5,000 dollars in taxes PLUS the 30,000 dollars I pay in income taxes. So I have paid SEVEN TIMES the amount of taxes that you have, but you have paid a higher percentage of your income.

Ever try to pay your taxes with a percentage mark? They only take checks or money orders.

But you probably didn't know that.

"We have some people riding in the wagon and some people pulling the wagon.... The richest Americans do most of the pulling."

this is:

A) "Infinite Justice"

B) a Marxist hallucination

C) Ripley's Believe it or Not?

D) the afterlife

E) all of the above

Your post was incomplete. The proper answer is of course F: The Truth. Nice picture though.

Unless they single-handedly manufacture and produce something, they are making their money off the labors of others.

Labor is a commodity that you can buy in the open market. You're buying labor when you hire a yard man or have your car repaired.

So let's suppose that your yard man starts marching back and forth in front of your house with a sign protesting against Marc for exploiting the poor. Solution: Hire a different yard man.

Payday is when accounts are squared. Labor isn't owed anything more after they receive their checks on payday. If they're unhappy with their pay, or your management style, or whatever, then they're free to market their services elsewhere.

And, if they'd rather be rich than poor, they should look into preparing themselves for something other than yard work.

Marc said: " let's suppose that your yard man starts marching back and forth in front of your house with a sign protesting against Marc for exploiting the poor. Solution: Hire a different yard man. "

but Marc, what happens if ALL the yard men, sick of being exploited, band together and ALL picket in front of Marc's house? Solution (according to American history): call in the National Guard. Hmm. Doesn't really sound quite like a free market to me. What's the state doing sticking its nose in anyway? I thought that only happened in "evil" places like the Soviet Union where the state controlled the means of production and labor...

Marc said: "And, if they'd rather be rich than poor, they should look into preparing themselves for something other than yard work."

They should also look into preparing themselves for something other than being a consumer robot slave. Or a prison inmate. But wait a second, what if that's all that's offered in terms of options for the majrority of people, especially poor people? What if you set up an education and media system that worked together (with the backing of the state through the use of police force) in order to "prepare" people for only a limited number of roles? Flip burgers or go to jail. Flip burgers or flip burgers. Or, flip burgers. Or go to jail. Or, flip burgers. Or...

--> What happens if ALL the yard men, sick of being exploited, band together and ALL picket in front of Marc's house?

First of all, they're not being exploited, they agreed to mow marc's yard at an agreed price. Do you have a problem with that?

--> Marc said: "And, if they'd rather be rich than poor, they should look into preparing themselves for something other than yard work."

--> They should also look into preparing themselves for something other than being a consumer robot slave. Or a prison inmate. But wait a second, what if that's all that's offered in terms of options for the majrority of people, especially poor people?

Geez #48 -- Sounds like your philosophy of life is that people are like trained seals. They get up in the morning, climb up on a rock, and open their mouths hoping that someone will toss them a fish.

How about getting out there and hunting up their own fish? Did the word "initiative" ever cross your mind?

People are not assigned to Prison or to become a consumer robot slave. People make their own way and choose their own options. If you're an inmate don't try to blame someone other than yourself.

--> What if you set up an education and media system that worked together (with the backing of the state through the use of police force) in order to "prepare" people for only a limited number of roles? Flip burgers or go to jail. Flip burgers or flip burgers. Or, flip burgers. Or go to jail. Or, flip burgers. Or...

Here's a revolutionary foreign thought for you 48.

What if people took responsibility for themselves instead of lining up at the welfare office? What if people believed that they haven't been 'assigned to poverty,' but might be able to make something of themselves with a good attitude, hard work, and vision?

Personally, I don't think looking for a job is a good idea. It's better to create jobs than to fill jobs. Start a company. Hire people. Create jobs. Call the shots. Be successful. Vote Republican. Blow off the friggin labor unions. It's not that difficult if you really give it your best shot.

Take your pick:

Option A: Poverty row, front and center. Selling flowers at the freeway offramp.

Option B: Self made man/woman and wealthy. Vacationing in Tuscany for three months in a rented villa.

Either option is within your grasp. If you choose option A, then you'll spend the rest of your life trying to convince yourself, and others, that your failures are someone elses fault, and not your own.

Perhaps you're a failure because of GWB. Perhaps it's all Republicans who made you a failure. The rich certainly plotted and schemed to keep you down.

Perhaps you're too short, or too ugly, or too rude, or too unrefined. Perhaps there is a secret government plot to keep you poor.

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with your laziness, or your bitch and complain attitude, or your lack of excellence in terms of job performance, or your lack of ambition/motivation. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that you never really tried to make a success of yourself. Not you! You're the one who made up a protest sign telling management that they're assholes. You're the one who became a labor union activist. Oh no, it's not your fault that you're poor and unsuccessful. How dare they promote that ass licker instead of you!

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but the first post ("uhh") was mine, the second ("labor") was not. Someone's obviously insecure enough in their own opinions not to take ownership and accountability for them. As such, I won't accomodate their insecurity with a retort.

Post 1:

"uhh

by Marc • Thursday January 09, 2003 Thut 04:12 PM

Unless they single-handedly manufacture and produce something, they are making their money off the labors of others."



Post 2:

"Labor

by Marc • Thursday January 09, 2003 Thut 04:38 PM

Labor is a commodity that you can buy in the open market. You're buying labor when you hire a yard man or have your car repaired.

So let's suppose that your yard man starts marching back and forth in front of your house with a sign protesting against Marc for exploiting the poor. Solution: Hire a different yard man.

Payday is when accounts are squared. Labor isn't owed anything more after they receive their checks on payday. If they're unhappy with their pay, or your management style, or whatever, then they're free to market their services elsewhere.

And, if they'd rather be rich than poor, they should look into preparing themselves for something other than yard work."

Garaj Dohr, the following quote from your post...

"Personally, I don't think looking for a job is a good idea. It's better to create jobs than to fill jobs. Start a company. Hire people. Create jobs. Call the shots. Be successful. Vote Republican. Blow off the friggin labor unions. It's not that difficult if you really give it your best shot."

...That narrow vision of economics is impossible, outside of a small group of people (compared to the total number of people in the economy). It is analgous to Multi Level Marketing, giving the false impression that "we all can be millionaires." Most people have to actually do something somewhere, be it offer services, produce widgets, what have you. Also, everyone does not start off life with the same opportunities, be they social, economic, educational, environmental, etc.

Marc, you're going to have to get used to people stealing your nickname (or nick) around here. It's part of the game.

As far as your contention,

"Unless they single-handedly manufacture and produce something, they are making their money off the labors of others."

you are mistaken. The fact is that a worker trades his labor in exchange for compensation. The employer trades his property (his money) for the worker's labor. This being understood, the employer is therefore not making his money off the labors of others, he is making his money off the difference in price between what it costs to manufacture something, and it's perceived market value. The worker didn't conceive of the product, nor purchase the tooling, nor train himself, nor pay for the insurance, marketing, packaging, or shipping. The employer did.

Nothing you said is factually incorrect. But the employer must accumulate their wealth/property/money somewhere to begin with, be it by their own labors, inheritance, dicovery, invention, etc. That is a component of the mix that must be ackowledged, but not the only one. I was disagreeing more with the premise of be a boss and hire people. If everyone is a boss, there are no workers. That is not feasible.

Marc, obviously we cannot all be the 'boss', but then most of us don't want to be. Different people will make the decision whether or not to strike out on their own based upon the balancing of potential rewards vs. risk. The fact is that most people are content trading their labor for cash and security, and are pleased that they only have to worry about their one small part of an enterprise. They are not risk takers. The class of people you refer to as 'bosses' are less adverse to risk. They are willing to forego the security of a paycheck and benefits provided by a company (or the government), because they beleive that their idea can work and will generate a profit for them.

Yes, but i'm not arguing that. I respect the ability of people to take risks and try to prosper. I'm only throwing out the reality that that does not, and can not apply to the majority of people. It is far easier to risk when you can afford to lose a lot. When you can not afford to lose anything, that is a massive risk. And, again, those that do risk, are risking something (other than just their reputation) that was ammassed somewhere prior to their taking the risk in the first place. I'm only arguing the notion that those that provide the labor are actual workers and should not be classified as "lazy, do-nothing, non-risk taking" people that would otherwise be waiting in welfare lines. That's elitist and classist.

Marc, my original purpose in posting was to dispel the fantasy that 'the poor' are somehow shouldering the burden of paying the taxes in this country and 'the rich' are getting off scott free. This is the cock and bull story repeated ad nauseum by the Demogogues of the Democratic Party in this country. The fact is just the opposite - 'the rich' pay the vast majority of the taxes, while 'the poor' get off scott free - and enjoy the largesse of the government which is provided by these taxes. If you're poor enough you receive free medical care, free food, free housing, free job training, free job placement, free drug and alcohol counseling, etc... not one penny of which has been payed for by 'the poor'.

To classify someone who is a working man as lazy or a do-nothing is incorrect. To classify him as not being a risk taker is not innacurate...

For the most part, yes, Simon. But I also have strong reservations aobut the income tax, in general. That doesn't sit well with most people, but it seems counterintuitive to penalize people for making more money, and it creates the impression . I would prefer we have some sort of individual citizen tax, a legal residency tax for immigrants who are not citizens (yet), better controlled tariffs (although we have marginalized this by allowing so many US corporations to headquarters outside the US), tolls, sales taxes on durable goods we all must buy, remove the gluttony and pork in government (both major parties are prime offenders), make elected representatives salaries representative of their constituency, reaffirm that government's role is for the people (remove profiteering from government), so it's aim should be to direct its services for as broad and maximum representation of the populace as possible.

An excellent proposition. The idea of getting rid the income tax would stimulate the economy greatly. The increased wealth of the general public would be invested, spent or used to create businesses which could then be taxed to make sure essential services are still provided by the government. Fat chance of anything like this occuring, however. We cannot even get the concept of a flat tax passed.

I don't know that that is really a better idea, although it may be simpler to codify than the existing lexicon of tax code. I think the personal income tax codes should be condensed to at most 10 pages. The amount of legaleze and jargon contained within it only substantiates the dearth of tax consultants and attorneys.

rocket science?

up

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

Brilliant analysis, again, Link. You found data from that all-so-reliable and world-renowned economics powerhouse, the war resisters league. Oh, you're good.

Mr. Simon,

I don't believe the data compiled by the bureaucrats who are paid off by Enron and every other slimy corporation. One year the GAO and other gurus talk of a huge defecit next year a huge deficit, without blinking an eye as to how wrong the projections and claims were. The facts are never going to be revealed as long as the tax-takers and Secret Spenders CIA, Iran-Contra etc. are able to keep the truth from the people.

DIsney went bankrupt several times, as did Donald Trump, so did The Airlines and even Orange County, what is that but a shifting of burden from the Corporate giants to the masses. Get real and get your FACTS straight.

Wonderful analysis. You will doubt the IRS' figures of what is spent on what in the government, yet will give full credence to a "league" which purports to know exactly how our tax dollars are spent.

How do these geniuses get such detailed information of how our tax money is spent if the government cannot be trusted to provide accurate data in the first place? Do they work in the government? Have they seen the REAL books? Conspiracy theorists like yourself are so tiresome.

Who is to be believed? The IRS who publishes their statistics for public consumption and scrutiny, or the 'war resisters league'? The IRS is peopled by tens of thousands of individuals, many of whom are career bureaucrats. They consist of people from both major political parties. If the administration was attempting to whitewash something, don't you think a whistleblower would alert us to it? Don't you think the media would be eager to give this whistleblower a hearing?

Now let's compare the polyglot IRS with the 'war resisters league'. A Leftist organization without accountability to anyone, with an avowed hostility to the military, with a longstanding and consistent antagonism to the West and collusion with Communist and Socialist governments. No mention is made of the numbers of their members, so one must guess they are in the dozens, perhaps hundreds. And these people are to be trusted with providing accurate data regarding American tax expenitures? Based on what expertise? Based on what data?

I await with bated breath your response.

'fresca' says we should read carefully....

HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED

War Resisters League creates this leaflet each year after the President releases a proposed budget. The figures here are from a line-by-line analysis of projected figures in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2003.

war tax resistance

up

Source: Budget of the US Government, FY2003.....(see bottom of chart)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

Good Stuff. To get to their goal of portraying the budget as being predominantly spent on the military they just remove stuff like payments to Social Security. Wow. That's a helluva argument. Hell, if you can just take anything out of the budget to make the balance more militarily preponderant, then why not go all the way? We are spending 100% of our budget on the military if you don't count anything else we spend money on. The 'war resisters league' are a collection of nincompoops, but keep coming back, Link.

funds such as Social Security... are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 15, 2002, goes only to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds (the so-called “Unified Budget”) began in the 1960s during the Vietnam War. The government presentation makes the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

another nice chart

another couple nice charts

who pulls the (war) wagon?

more

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

Well Ms. Link, it would seem you've hoisted yourself on your own petard. When conducting your tedious linkings, it would behoove you to ensure that they are not contradictory.

The 'war resisters league' claims that Social Security and other entitlement programs should be kept off the books when looking at what our tax dollars fund. They clearly mark the total federal budget at the top of their pie chart, and then lay out the expenditures of the federal government (presumably) as a percentage of this budget. By their math, one is led to believe that of a total federal budget of roughly ,700 billion dollars, 46% goes to military expenditures past and present. This is not true and you know it. The total federal budget INCLUDES social security and other entitlement programs. Removing them, you must remove the dollars that are spent on them from the total. This is called subtraction. It's an operation used in math. Remember math? Now your friends at the 'league' are not just guilty of an oversight, they are intentionally misinforming us. The numbers on the left of the chart add up to the total federal budget printed above it. But Social Security is not to be found. (Now before you start, yes the words 'soc sec.' appear in a paragraph on the left. But this refers to the amount spent on the administration of the program, not the amount that the program pays out.)

Your feminist friends have a chart which reflects more accurately how our monies are spent. At the top again is the total federal budget (with a slightly lower total, as their data comes from FY95), but they clearly show that military expenditures are 50% of the 'discretionary spending' section of the pie (which is 36% of the total). Now here's the hard part: 50% of 36% = 18%. This number ring a bell? It's the percentage that the IRS said is spent on the military.

Question: How does the 'war resisters league' remove Social Security and other entitlements from the budget, yet still come up with a budget of ,700 billion dollars (roughly), when your buddies at the girl's club say that the budget is about that big WITH social security?

Answer: Your buddies at WRL are as full of shit as I said they were a while ago. They are removing the entitlements from the budget, creating bogus percentages from what is left over, then extrapolating the amounts supposedly spent as if Social Security didn't exist.

Now, you've presented the WRL and the Feminists views. They seem to be at odds with one another. Care to state where you come down on this point?

You might have to actually write something. Or I guess you could link to a site which says YES or NO.

Why Do the Percentages Vary from Group to Group? (see yellow box)

another nice chart

'Simple Simon's favorite chart

who pulls the (war) wagon?

more

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2077064

Regardless of your endless and conflicting attempts at disinformation, the fact remains that the 'rich' pay a disproportionate preponderance of the taxes in this country, and the 'poor' don't pay squat.

As to the amount spent on defense, Link's buddies at the 'war resisters league' have not explained how they can remove Social Security from the budget, yet the amount spent on the budget remains the same. Magic pixie dust, perhaps?

One person posing as two.

No, they're not the same person, they're just locked in such a tight circle-jerk that the seem like one person

...the question isn't who pays more taxes, but who gets more out of the taxes paid.....certainly ain't the fuckin' poor, or they wouldn't BE poor....the rich reap a disproportionate amount of benefits, THAT is a fact. Take, take, take, then cry like a fuckin' baby when it's time to ante up their share...typical Republicanism bullshit....

Well, KPC, since you've opened your fool mouth again, why don't you put up or shut up?

Name the benefits that the rich receive that the poor do not.

And try not to spit on yourself cursing at the computer screen.

"benefits that the rich receive"

more

--------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

You are so easy to beat up, Link, I'm starting to feel sorry for you.

I really wanted Mr. Mom/ KPC to try and come up with something to bolster his argument, but since you've volunteered for a flogging...

Contracts awarded companies by the government are not benefits accorded to wealthy individuals. Even if some malfeasence can be linked to the award of these contracts, the economic result is that Company A will have a contract, and Company B will not.

This means that everyone at Company A benefits, and everyone at Company B does not. From the boss down to the guy sweeping the floors after hours. The question asked, and not answered, was what benefits are given to the wealthy AS A CLASS that are unavailable to the poor AS A CLASS. While in our example the evil capitalist that runs Company A will get a fat amount of money, the dirty robber baron running Company B will be left without. Not good enough.

Oh, well. Better luck next time.

The only reason Lynx posts is to kill the thread. The Lynx signature is a signal that there's no point in reading this post. It's just going to be a link, or a collection of links, to a far left radical web site w/o any discussion or arguments.

"far left radical web site"....????!! (check upper left corner link)

more

more info on who benefits

and more

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

“Had we, as an Air Force, managed the C-17 (Globemaster III) program…in a steady, consistent manner, we would have saved close to billion,” Secretary of the Air Force, Roche, said at the Air and Space Seminar on Capitol Hill.

Earth to Link, Come in Link.

Look, Link, you have failed miserably to provide an answer to the question and now are trying to change the debate. It won't wash.

Pvt. Fido, must you continually lick yourself on-line, it's fuckin' embarrassing!

Hey, you are still here, KPC. So where's my list? You remember, don't you?

"Well, KPC, since you've opened your fool mouth again, why don't you put up or shut up?

Name the benefits that the rich receive that the poor do not.

And try not to spit on yourself cursing at the computer screen."

This is fun.

goooood doggie....gooooooood boy...now, roll over! ROLLLLLL OVER!

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on - it does make you think!!

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to 0. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay , the sixth would pay , the seventh, the eighth , the ninth , and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay . That's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement - until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language, a tax cut). "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by ."

So now dinner for the ten only cost .00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that divided by six is .33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same % amount that they normally paid, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in , the seventh paid , the eighth paid , the ninth paid , leaving the tenth man with a bill of instead of his earlier . Each of the six was better off than before.

And the first four continued to eat for free.

Once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the ," declared the sixth man, but he pointing to the tenth. "But he got !"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too........ It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why should he get back when I got only ?" The wealthy get all the breaks!".

"Wait a minute," yelled in unison the first four men that had paid nothing, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of meeting the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straight forward logic!
____
T. Davies Professor of Accounting & Chair, Division of Accounting and Business Law The University of South Dakota School of Business 414 E. Clark Street Vermillion, SD 57069 Phone: 605-677-5230

inequality

income inequality

nice chart from Center For Defense Information

Let's go through the charts, so Baby will know we care.

1: Pie chart of stock ownership. The top 10% of wage earners own roughly 80% of the stocks, mutual funds, and 401k's. And your point is?

If you would bother to scroll to the top of this page you'll see that the top 10% of wage earners in this country earn ,144 a year or more. Not exactly the robber baron class. All of our lazy, surly, drunk, and drug-addled longshoremen are included in this group, as are the majority of all union members. There's a reason why people below this annual salary range don't own much - they don't have extra capital to invest. Now, if you work hard, stay at a job, get enrolled in a 401K program, you'll get there someday. And then you'll get to hate yourself for being a 'rich' person.

2. CEO pay, worker pay, and inflation. Well, here we do have something to be enraged about. CEO pay went up astronomically during the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, and has dropped like a rock ever since President Bush took office. So much for the 'decade of greed' arguments. And the worker's pay is outpacing inflation, so what's the problem?

3. Untitled and unexplained chart. I surmise that this bar graph is to be read in billions of dollars of annual expenditures. So what's your point? Of course the United States spends more than our allies. Our allies have depended upon us to do the vast majority of military heavy lifting since the end of the Second World War. The shield for Europe and South Korea and Taiwan is payed for by the American taxpayer, and thus our allies' expenitures are much lower.

When we compare our spending to China and so-called rogue states, one must keep in mind the number of worldwide commitments and bases that are payed for and maintained by the US. Furthermore, this chart is useless unless the expenitures are wieghed against the GDP of the countries in question.

Back to you, Baby. My little Link. A.V.

over and over and over again, the two of them show up at the exact same time. This has happened for weeks.

Tax them too much and they might just not show up. You know, you had me going until that point. Is that a threat?? Oh, you must mean when corporations create huge tax breaks for themselves, or when they figure out funny accounting not to pay taxes at ALL. Is that what you mean by not show up at the table? So the message is, better be nice to the rich or they won't pay their taxes. Come on, they don't pay their taxes anyway! That's what they're asked to pay. You're not taking account write offs and business accounting.

Your analogy, while well drawn out, is largely useless. Remember that the poor are WORKING for the rich, the poor and in the restaurant making food for the rich. The poor are sick of earning minimum wage so the rich can maintain their high wages. In my version of the analogy, the poor stay home and cook there.

1. What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have?

2. What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have?

3. Which country has the largest oil reserves?

4. Which country has the second largest oil reserves?

5.How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide?

6.How much of this is spent by the U.S.?

7.What percent of U.S. military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world, according to the UN?

8.How many people have died in wars since World War II?

9.How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons?

10. Did Iraq develop these chemical and biological weapons on their own?

11. Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against Iran?

12. How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988?

13. How many western countries condemned this action at the time?

14. How many gallons of Agent Orange did America use in Vietnam?

15. Are there any proven links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 terrorist attack?

16. What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War?

17. How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western forces during the Gulf War?

18. How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with ploughs mounted on the front?

19. How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War?

20. What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994?

21. How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had destroyed in 1991?

22. Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything other than deterrence and self-defence?

23. Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years ago?

24. How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on Iraq in 2003?

25. What percentage of these will be children?

Answers: 1. 6 per cent. 2. 50 per cent. 3. Saudi Arabia. 4. Iraq. 5. 0+ billion. 6. 50 per cent. 7. 10 per cent (that's about billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund the retaliatory attack on Afghanistan). 8. 86 million. 9. Since the early 1980s. 10. No. The U.S. government, Britain and private corporations supplied the materials and technology. 11. No. 12. 5,000. 13. 0. 14. 17 million. 15. No. 16. 35,000. 17. 0. 18. 6,000 19. 40 tons. 20. 700 per cent. 21. 80 per cent. 22. No. 23. No. 24. 10,000. 25. Over 50 per cent.

quiz



--------------------------------------------------------------------

anticrisis

He has the right to say what ever he wants. As Americans we are free that way. These freedoms came from defeating our enemies.

So when people protes or lash out against our governmet it just remids us why we are doing what we are doing.