Text 3760, 130 rader
Skriven 2006-07-08 16:03:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4233.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Kurt Ullman to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <kurtullman-3DDADB.12374808072006@news.west.earthlink.net>
@REPLY: <kurtullman-347578.16595402072006@news.west.earthlink.net>
In article <h3kva25ksbttrjcj88vkiqvdb8061rpife@4ax.com>,
 Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >    That shows that the average tax rate for the total population was 
> >11.90% while the top 1% paid 24.30% tax rate. 
> 
> While I can't attest to the accuracy of their statistics, the figures
> to which you've referred refer only to income tax, which is among the
> most progressive of taxes, while omitting regressive taxes such as
> Social Security.
> 
      Your buddies at that other place only discussed income taxes, too. 
These are IRS stats, you aren't really gonna try to suggest that IRS 
stats aren't accurate? 



> Also, you're argument that "it's hard to argue that you have 
> such low rates while paying twice the amount of taxes" doesn't seem to
> me meaningful. The concentration of wealth in this country is nothing
> short of astounding. It could just as easily reflect that.
     Actually it follows the 20% of the people have 80% of the whatever 
you are measuring that you see in many (if not most systems).  Ex: 20% 
of the ill use up around 80% of healthcare services. Not a really 
outlandish, or even terribly unusual occurence. 


> 
> >http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200512070900.asp
> 
> >  Actually click on the link in the first sentence and it will send you 
> >an Xcel spreadsheet with the information, since you are probably going 
> >to write off as heresay ANYTHING the National Review has to say. 
> 
> No, writing off inconvenient evidence as hearsay is a conservative
> trick (which you've used yourself above).
      True, I used evidence that was inconvenient to your assertion. 
Other than that, I was merely reprising the original website you sent me 
to. 

> 
> What I did notice about the article is that its premises are
> nonsensical, since it doesn't account for rising /income/ among the
> rich. Had they had honest intent, they would have a) included all
> taxes; b) made a fair assessment of income; and c) referred to
> percentage of income paid. In short, they would have done just what my
> source did.
   Of course I only sent you to the article as a gateway to the IRS 
stats. I also specifically stated that I did not expect you to give the 
article any credence, so this is a side issue. The content of the 
article was not entered into the conversation from my standpoint. 

> 
> And their failure to do that is another typical conservative trick. 
     Guffaw.

> 
> >   Another IRS spreadsheet that might have been the initial source for 
> >the dubious information is Table 474. Individual Income Tax 
> >Returns--Number, Income Tax,           
> >and Average Tax by Size of Adjusted Gross Income: 2000 and 2002            
> >
> >http://qrc.depaul.edu/TableListing.asp?n=9
> >    Those making $1 million or more (169,000 returns) paid 29% of their 
> >adjusted gross income in taxes compared with 16% for the total 
> >population. There were similar findings for the next two breakouts which 
> >gets us to $200,000 or so per year. 
> >      So, this all adds up to your other figure being suspect at best 
> >and dead most likely.
> 
> It just means that you're comparing apples to oranges and then using
> that to ignore figures that you don't find politically appealing.

    Nope means I stayed with what the people YOU pointed me to used as 
their premise and tore it into little bitty pieces. 

> 
> >It also mean shows that those at the higher levels 
> >of income pay higher percentages of said income in taxes than the total. 
       

> 
> Perhaps. If you ignore the very richest. If you ignore all the other
> taxes. But neither are realistic assumptions. They'll be even less
> realistic when a) the Republicans abolish the alternative minimum tax
> on the pretext that it affects the middle class*; we'll go back to the
> days when people earning a million dollars a year paid no income taxes
> and b) the Republicans abolish the estate tax.
   Err. My figures included those at a million or above AGI. That is as 
high as the IRS figures go. It is the 2.6% or so. How do you get higher.      

> 
> *If their concern were actually with middle class liability they'd
> merely raise the floor; ditto for all that whining about family farms
> and small businesses in the case of the estate tax
 The ONLY problem we are having with the AMT is that attempts to have it 
indexed to inflation, which is what has happened with the "regular" 
brackets since Reagan, have been beaten back.   AMT is a really nice 
indication of the "bracket creep" that indexing to inflation managed to 
avoid in the "rgular Brackets." The GOP has tried on a couple of 
occassions to get the indexing.. guess who stops them? 
> 
> >> And even to the extent that that isn't the case, my assertion that
> >> each rich taxpayer benefited far more than each middle class taxpayer
> >> remains correct.
> 
> >        So even if you are wrong you are right? Interesting concept (g).
> > However, the figures show that even if they benefited far more, they 
> >PAID for more.
> 
> Except for the minor fact that they don't show that at all.
       They pay a higher part of their AGI in taxes than the average, so 
they don't pay more? Of course they paid more of their income in taxes. 

> 
> I would be interested in seeing an honest accounting that's more
> thorough than what I've seen on various web sites, but this
> information is fairly hard to come by.

      Ageree there.
                                          
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)