Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The Reality of Taxes And Tax Cuts

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The Reality of Taxes And Tax Cuts
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The Reality of Taxes And Tax Cuts
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
I saw this or something similar a while ago

In reply to: The Reality of Taxes And Tax Cuts

but it's very much worth repeating. I'm far from being the 10th person and do my share of grumbling. But, I also know that it's someone in that bracket that's provided me with a job and pays a large share of my health benefits. I was only unemployed one time and only about 6 months. That was no a pleasant experience and plenty enough to make me appreciate the hard work and good fortunes of others who have done better financially than I have.:)

Collapse -
But don't you understand,

In reply to: The Reality of Taxes And Tax Cuts

it's not "FAIR"

Collapse -
What worries me, duckman...

In reply to: But don't you understand,

Duckman, what worries me is that I might one day be classified as one of the "rich" by the Democrats. I'm getting organized after my recent move and with careful management will get by despite my unusual condition, but I can see the Democrats getting in power and saying that my small nest egg is "more than I need" and try to tax away what they consider to be the "excess". I prefer to keep it and stay independent, although I could theoretically live in a home (or whatever you call it) for the disabled.

Collapse -
Liberals

In reply to: What worries me, duckman...

won't ever define what "rich" is. It's really just one of their oldy,moldy class warfare slogans used to incite their sheeple followers.

Collapse -
They have already started, duckman...

In reply to: Liberals

Duckman, they have already started. When I sell the farm, I will take the proceeds and invest them in stocks, looking for dividends so that I can stretch it out long enough to last the rest of my life. Having stocks that throw dividends means that I will be one of "the rich" to them and that money should be taxed as much as possible. As I will use it for things like hiring somebody to occasionally drive me to the store and other such things necessary for my survival "on my own". I prefer to keep it and spend it on such frivolities as home nursing and/or a home attendant. But to the Democrats, having stocks = is "rich". Many of the elderly are in the same boat, including the elderly who are not disabled.

Collapse -
re

In reply to: But don't you understand,

Happy
Collapse -
IRS figures, MKay:

In reply to: The Reality of Taxes And Tax Cuts

I have the Excel spreadsheet if you want it, BTW.

As of tax year 2001:

The top 1% paid 33.89% of taxes, down from 37.42% in 2000. The decrease was not due to rax cuts, but rather because their share of America's incomes FELL from 20.81% to 17.53%.

The top 5% paid 53.25% of taxes.

The top 10%, 64.89%.

The top 50% paid 96.03% of taxes collected in 2001.

Remember that when any liberal comes and says that we're unfairly burdening the poor with taxes. There's no money to collect from those folks; therefore, there's no way short of a negative income tax (more correctly called a Government-guaranteed minimum income) of getting them more money!

Collapse -
thanks for the current update, Paul...

In reply to: IRS figures, MKay:

the message is the same however....

Collapse -
Interesting that the figures dont change whether they are

In reply to: The Reality of Taxes And Tax Cuts

for tax payers or debtors. For instance any accountant will tell you that the top 25% (by amount owed) of your receivables always account for more than 50% of the total owed. Since this seems to be more or less a constant in the world of fiscal math I would put very little credence in how meaningful these figures are. To a collection agency it means that by concentrating their efforts on the owers of the most $$$$'s they will get the greatest return...etc! Simply put in theory collecting one one hundred $$$$ debt yields a better return than trying to collect ten ten dollar debts.

Managers of receivables often put this into practice. Unfortunately it doesnt always work as the biggest debtors are not always better payers....sigh!

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

GIVEAWAY

Enter to win* a free holiday tech gift!

CNET's giving five lucky winners the gift of their choice valued up to $250!