GOP to Jobless: Drop Dead

[piece-itpete]

Poor people sure don't create jobs.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

.

... an honest congressman ...

You have found such a man?

Pete

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Poor people sure don't create jobs.

Pete

Yes they do. A lot of people have become rich providing substandard housing and jalopies to poor people. They will use underlings to deal with the riff raff whose money they take. Poor people still buy groceries. In many cases, the poor will pay higher prices for goods or services, because they can't afford to buy them in bulk. Because there are plenty of poor people, those who target those markets have plenty of customers. I don't think Sam Walton got rich by catering to the yuppies. Wal-Mart has created thousands of crappy jobs (to replace the jobs lost in local stores that were run out of business by Wally Martindales.)

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Yes they do. A lot of people have become rich providing substandard housing and jalopies to poor people. They will use underlings to deal with the riff raff whose money they take. Poor people still buy groceries. In many cases, the poor will pay higher prices for goods or services, because they can't afford to buy them in bulk. Because there are plenty of poor people, those who target those markets have plenty of customers. I don't think Sam Walton got rich by catering to the yuppies. Wal-Mart has created thousands of crappy jobs (to replace the jobs lost in local stores that were run out of business by Wally Martindales.)

Regards,

D-Ray

Tell it, D!

Dave

[merrylander]

At one point in time Bill Gates was a poor college student. He created a few jobs. How about the first Apple computers. Bill Hewlett and Tony Packard started in a garage. Wealthy people are too busy wallowing in their money to create jobs. Even Warren Buffett does not create jobs, he just buys up companies.

[Fast_Eddie]

Ahh. It's unfortunate that I don't fall into the top tax bracket, so I can’t speak from personal experience- but it's my belief that people who fall into the scenario you describe above don't actually *pay* anywhere near 42.65% of their income in taxes. If fact, I suspect it is much, much less than that.

In 2007, Warren Buffett rather famously derided the tax system that allows him, the third richest man in the world, to pay less in taxes than his secretary.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/mon...cle1996735.ece

I believe the truth of the matter is, that for all the talk of "taxing the rich", our current system allows them many, many loopholes to prevent them from paying anything close to the rates often bantered about by the conservative pundits. Buffet claims he paid less than 18% while making no effort to pay less than his share.

I think the sad truth is, the convoluted tax system is set up the way it is on purpose. It allows the wealthy folks, a.k.a. the lawmakers, to point at a number and say "look, that's almost half my income that goes to taxes!" while at the same time providing them myriad ways to avoid paying taxes that are not available to you and me. I'd love to see a much simplified tax system for that reason, and the "fair tax" you posted about yesterday is sounding better and better to me. I love the idea of national Sales Tax. I tend to save money and not spend a lot. My taxes would drop like a rock. I've also long been in favor of an increased gas tax to build motivation for using less gas - increasingly a security issue. Everything about the "fair tax" seems to reward good behavior and punish poor decisions. That makes sense to me.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Ahh. It's unfortunate that I don't fall into the top tax bracket, so I can’t speak from personal experience- but it's my belief that people who fall into the scenario you describe above don't actually *pay* anywhere near 42.65% of their income in taxes.

My post wasn't referring to marginal tax rates. I was referring to income tax rates.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by whell

My post wasn't referring to marginal tax rates. I was referring to income tax rates.

I stand by my statement- I don't think you can find anyone actually paying 42% in taxes.

I found this article on what Americans actually pay:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-pay-in-taxes/

"The main findings: The overall effective federal tax rate (the ratio of federal taxes to household income) was 20.7 percent in 2006, with the highest quintile of American households paying 25.8 percent of their income in federal taxes."

This is no where near 42% or even 35%. Those figures are, at best, misleading.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

I stand by my statement- I don't think you can find anyone actually paying 42% in taxes.

I found this article on what Americans actually pay:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-pay-in-taxes/

"The main findings: The overall effective federal tax rate (the ratio of federal taxes to household income) was 20.7 percent in 2006, with the highest quintile of American households paying 25.8 percent of their income in federal taxes."

This is no where near 42% or even 35%. Those figures are, at best, misleading.

We're addressing two separate subjects: marginal or effective rates (you) versus taxes on W-2 earnings (me). You suggest my numbers are misleading by posting something unrelated. Interesting debate strategy...

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

We're addressing two separate subjects: marginal or effective rates (you) versus taxes on W-2 earnings (me). You suggest my numbers are misleading by posting something unrelated. Interesting debate strategy...

A marginal tax rate is the tax rate that applies to the last dollar of the tax base (taxable income or spending)

Changing the definition midstream. Interesting debate tactic.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by whell

We're addressing two separate subjects: marginal or effective rates (you) versus taxes on W-2 earnings (me). You suggest my numbers are misleading by posting something unrelated. Interesting debate strategy...

Okay, I'm trying here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "marginal" tax rates refer to the higest level of tax you pay. We have a graduated taxation system and the marginal tax rate applies to the highest level of taxes you pay. It is a number, as I understand it, that is much higer than your average tax rate. Your average tax rate, again, as I understand it, refers to the percentage of tax you pay on all your income- that is, at all the rates that apply to you up to and including the portion of your income on which you pay the marginal rate.

So, no, I have no idea what you mean when you simply say "taxes on W-2 earnings". That doesn't say anything. Do you mean averge tax rate? If so, you're making your case worse as I'm reasonably certain that your 44% fiugre is speaking to a marginal rate. No way anyone is paying 44% on ALL their W-2 earnings.

Try this:

http://www.dinkytown.net/java/TaxMargin.html

If you are single, no dependents and make $1M a year (pretty sure that's none of us) you *still* only pay 32.4% average tax rate on W-2 income, putting nothing in an IRA, nothing in a 401k and with NO DEDUCTIONS AT ALL. I can't figure out a way to make more of a "worst case scenario" as I'm almost sure that would be virtually no one in the United States.

So, yes, please tell me where I'm doing anything but giving you the most favorable counter to your argument. If you are talking about average tax rates your figures are even MORE misleading than I made them out to be.