From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Apr 07 2003 - 18:11:10 MDT
Randy writes
> Assume that all those poor people will riot and kill all
> the yuppies. That should do the trick.
> I really like Bill Maher's approach to social justice
> when asked on his TV show why we should give out
> welfare, "Because they might kill you otherwise?".
It's true. Many liberals do feel that by paying extortion
money they can relieve their guilt for having contributed
personally to the economy. Why do they feel guilty? Because
they look down on those not making as much as they do, and
believe that no change is possible. Unlike the targets of
their sympathy, their "nobless oblige", they really don't
think it's possible for poor people to get their act together.
Michael Dickey quotes
"[U.S.] High Incomers are paying an even larger share of income
taxes than in past years, according to the new IRS data from tax
returns for 2000, the most recent set it has analyzed."
The data in the quote reads
Percentage of
Top Percent All Taxes Paid
1% 37%
5% 56%
10% 67%
50% 96%
> While I am opposed to progressive taxes..., I have a suggestion.
> Why not just eliminate that bottom 50% of wage earners from the
> income tax? It would amount to a 4% tax cut to income revenue,
> some of which would be negated by how much would be saved by the
> IRS only dealing with 140 million people instead of 280 million.
That's a brilliant idea!
> Any politician who proposed this on a presidential ticket could
> get 140 million votes. This would be a particularly wise move
> for Republicans in congress to present, as the overall change in
> the tax burden is minimal... and Democrats will have a significant
> thing to whine about wiped off their agenda.
Exactly. Probably the Republicans should do it *before* the
Democrats do, because why leave this great popular move for
them to reap the rewards of?
Of course, then the bottom 51% will have absolutely no incentive
whatsoever to oppose tax increases, and since they are the
beneficiaries of the redistributed monies, we can demolish
incentives all around, and complete the wrecking of the country
right away! It's better than a slow death of a thousand jabs
anyway.
Another idea is that since the top 5% pay 56% of the taxes
already (and that's not you and me!), let's just double
their taxes and then no one but them will have to pay even
one penny. Besides, they're rich and can afford to pay a
mere twice as much in taxes!
Lee
> The top 1% of filers paid 37% percent of all income taxes, up from 36%
> the year before. But they made just 21% of the total adjusted gross
> income. An AGI of at least $313,400 was needed to be classified in
> the top 1%. The top 5% paid 56% of the total income taxes, and made
> 35% of all AGI. The each had an income of $128,300 or more. The
> upper 10% of all filers, those with an AGI of at least $92,100 bore
> 67% of the income tax burden. The bottom 50% of filers paid just 4%
> of income taxes in 2000."
(Note. Many sentences of the above were sarcastic in nature---Lee)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 07 2003 - 18:18:14 MDT