Originally posted by Bardock42
Goddammit, I am sure I wrote up a reply for that yesterday. Must have forgotten to send it.Anyways, inimalist said " The middle class pay for everyone." and that is obviously incorrect as the rich pay very well for themselves and then some (much) more.
As for your other statements, got some stats on that? I'd be delighted to read.
"The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html
perhaps you are confusing upper class with upper-middle class?
I've only seen IRS data (2006) that the upper class (if one defines the upper class as those earning a gross income above $100,000) pay around 70% of the total personal tax revenue.
Either way that still means that the wealthy are paying the bulk percentage of the income tax intake though... which doesn't really support the statement of the middle class paying "shit" but also doesn't support the middle class contributing more than the upper class and paying for everything, nor that the middle class are paying a higher percentage of their income (the latter should be recognized as intuitively wrong considering the upper class are taxed at a higher rate).
There is however a loophole in your tax law whereby millionaire financiers, hedge-fund managers and investment bankers have their income treated as capital gains rather than income, which means they're taxed at far too low a level.
Originally posted by SchecterYour link to wikipedia defines the top 20%, which you've also chosen to highlight in your post as the apparent "upper class", as those earning $92,000 per annum and upwards. Although if you have a better defining point for being part of the "upper class" I'm open to it.
well thats if you accept a generally unaccepted definition of upper-class in the u.s.
I don't know if Average Joe USA earning his median income of $32K, would consider someone earning above $100K as being alongside him in the middle class.
Erratum: Actually, your link refers to household income.
This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States that cites the Census Bureau indicates that only 5% earn greater than $100K.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Your link to wikipedia defines the top 20% of earners, which you've also chosen to highlight in your post as the apparent "upper class", as those earning $92,000 per annum and upwards.
it gives multiple interpretations of upper-class. it doesnt 'define' anything since its simply based on a highly subjective socioeconomic standard. according to some it is based on 100,000+ HOUSEHOLD income. someone who earns 50K a year would be in an upper-class household if if they married someone of equal income, which is laughable. the widely accepted meaning of 'upper class' are the top 1-2%.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I would consider someone earning more than $100K relatively comfortable, and as noted in my edit above, those earning over $100K constitute around 5% of earners aged 25 and over.
of course it would be comfortable. i certainly wouldnt debate that. i bet a someone who makes a couple of million a year is a bit more comfy though. i also feel that to put these two individuals in the same bracket is just not sane.
the difference between the top 5 percent and top 2 percent is extremely drastic.
I see your point and I would probably separate those earning 7 figure or more salaries from those earning $100K too, but at the same time I wouldn't consider someone on an individual 6 figure income, even on the low end, as "middle class America." I don't think one has to be Warren Buffett to be considered wealthy.
And while I'm for progressive taxation, considering it's essentially necessary for most governments to function and these people can afford to part with a bigger chunk of their cash - whether one chooses to take the top 20, 10, 5 or 2 percent though, one shouldn't downplay that they are already paying more than their fair share.
Originally posted by Schecter
wtf am i your personal google?"The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html
perhaps you are confusing upper class with upper-middle class?
So, what that study shows you gave is that the Top 20% rich people pay 64%....sixty ****ing four percent...of all taxes in the US?
Isn't it pretty ****ing apparent that the people paying for "everyone" ... are those 20%?
Also, yeah, if you are going to make blanket statements you better be my ****ing google.
I don't agree with the "the middle class pays shit", that's obviously bullshit, but the upper class gets so much shit from libtards, it should quite be noted that they factually pay and do so much more for the government, country and economy than anyone else, that they could get a break once in a while. But, meh, it's "in" to bash rich people.
Your point that the top 20% are not the upper class, is also noted, but it doesn't matter, obviously the smaller you make the group the less they will be able to contribute in absolute numbers. Agreed, the top 0.00001% pay pretty less compared to the total the government spends, but they pay more than their fair share anyways, on top of other things they bring to the country. Though, obviously the loop holse are a problem in some ways, they are not really enough to make the hate for highest income people justified.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So, what that study shows you gave is that the Top 20% rich people pay 64%....sixty ****ing four percent...of all taxes in the US?Isn't it pretty ****ing apparent that the people paying for "everyone" ... are those 20%?
Also, yeah, if you are going to make blanket statements you better be my ****ing google.
again you're subscribing the assumption that the top 20% equals upper class, as fact.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't agree with the "the middle class pays shit", that's obviously bullshit, but the upper class gets so much shit from libtards, it should quite be noted that they factually pay and do so much more for the government, country and economy than anyone else, that they could get a break once in a while. But, meh, it's "in" to bash rich people.
hmmm ok, only i wasnt bashing the upper class. while i feel they get too much of a break these days i was simply pointing out that being in the top 20% does not render one 'upper class' or 'wealthy'. they are certainly comfortable, but to play upper and middle statistics between somepne who earns 80k and 110k, yet consider the gap between 100k and a few million as superficial is just insane.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Your point that the top 20% are not the upper class, is also noted
noted and ignored apparently
Originally posted by Bardock42
but it doesn't matter, obviously the smaller you make the group the less they will be able to contribute in absolute numbers. Agreed, the top 0.00001% pay pretty less compared to the total the government spends, but they pay more than their fair share anyways, on top of other things they bring to the country. Though, obviously the loop holse are a problem in some ways, they are not really enough to make the hate for highest income people justified.
its not a superficial play on percentages as you try to turn it into. the top 1-2% is generally regarded as the upper class in the u.s. again there is no final word. some consider a 100k+ household to be upper class. i choose to use the most widely accepted and practical definition which acknowledges rich people. you can assume its bashing all you wish but i never did say anything even derogatory.
I think people took the "middle class pays for everything" a little too literally.
Does everyone agree that those who fall in the middle class, especially people making less than 100k a year, are more adversely effected by the percentage of their income which goes to the government than those who make, say, over 150k a year?
Nobody is saying raise the taxes for the rich, unless I read something wrong...
Originally posted by inimalist
I think people took the "middle class pays for everything" a little too literally.Does everyone agree that those who fall in the middle class, especially people making less than 100k a year, are more adversely effected by the percentage of their income which goes to the government than those who make, say, over 150k a year?
Nobody is saying raise the taxes for the rich, unless I read something wrong...
Exactly! Tax cuts don't really do much for the "middle class." Which leads me to this question:
Why would any middle class/working class citizen vote for McCain? Why? Why? Why?
I can't begin to understand it from an economic standpoint.
There is a journal called Political Psychology, it is one of my favs.
They did a study that shows voters are more swayed by who they feel to be most like them rather than on issues.
and I actually think tax cuts for the middle class are great, because the money that isn't going to the government will be put right back into the economy, whereas tax cuts for the rich may increase investment, but even if it is invested back into the economy, it is only the economy that services the upper class that benefits. Also, the money middle class people spend in the economy eventually makes its way to the top