10 total posts
I saw this or something similar a while ago
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.:)
But don't you understand,
What worries me, duckman...
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.
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.
They have already started, duckman...
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.
IRS figures, MKay:
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!
thanks for the current update, Paul...
the message is the same however....
Interesting that the figures dont change whether they are
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!