OT: Unbiased analysis of Obama and McCain tax plans

[CA renter]

Check out the difference in “Nonhome Wealth” (nice charts on page 11)!!! ***PDF WARNING***

All kinds of good info here.

(sorry, but I can’t copy it over)

http://www.levy.org/pubs/wp_502.pdf

[Anonymous]

Whoa, there, surveyor! Before this devolves into a completely ludicrous mud-fest, just let me mention that I agree with you on the point of not necessarily giving more money to government, to a point. Never said that we should just throw all our money at the government and its programs.

I’m not going to throw any more punches. Somehow I’ve pushed your buttons and you’re already calling me an uneducated child, after ascribing statements to me that I never made. I would just ask that, if you’re going to call me out on logic, you try not to misquote and misinterpret me.

But dude…the man is totally keepin’ me down, pass the dutchie. (kidding!)

[Anonymous]

Whoa, there, surveyor! Before this devolves into a completely ludicrous mud-fest, just let me mention that I agree with you on the point of not necessarily giving more money to government, to a point. Never said that we should just throw all our money at the government and its programs.

I’m not going to throw any more punches. Somehow I’ve pushed your buttons and you’re already calling me an uneducated child, after ascribing statements to me that I never made. I would just ask that, if you’re going to call me out on logic, you try not to misquote and misinterpret me.

But dude…the man is totally keepin’ me down, pass the dutchie. (kidding!)

[Anonymous]

Whoa, there, surveyor! Before this devolves into a completely ludicrous mud-fest, just let me mention that I agree with you on the point of not necessarily giving more money to government, to a point. Never said that we should just throw all our money at the government and its programs.

I’m not going to throw any more punches. Somehow I’ve pushed your buttons and you’re already calling me an uneducated child, after ascribing statements to me that I never made. I would just ask that, if you’re going to call me out on logic, you try not to misquote and misinterpret me.

But dude…the man is totally keepin’ me down, pass the dutchie. (kidding!)

[Anonymous]

Whoa, there, surveyor! Before this devolves into a completely ludicrous mud-fest, just let me mention that I agree with you on the point of not necessarily giving more money to government, to a point. Never said that we should just throw all our money at the government and its programs.

I’m not going to throw any more punches. Somehow I’ve pushed your buttons and you’re already calling me an uneducated child, after ascribing statements to me that I never made. I would just ask that, if you’re going to call me out on logic, you try not to misquote and misinterpret me.

But dude…the man is totally keepin’ me down, pass the dutchie. (kidding!)

[Anonymous]

Whoa, there, surveyor! Before this devolves into a completely ludicrous mud-fest, just let me mention that I agree with you on the point of not necessarily giving more money to government, to a point. Never said that we should just throw all our money at the government and its programs.

I’m not going to throw any more punches. Somehow I’ve pushed your buttons and you’re already calling me an uneducated child, after ascribing statements to me that I never made. I would just ask that, if you’re going to call me out on logic, you try not to misquote and misinterpret me.

But dude…the man is totally keepin’ me down, pass the dutchie. (kidding!)

[Anonymous]

How many total people are in the top 1%?

“The wealthy now pay 6 times more than the poor” Are the weathy 6 times more wealthy than the poor?

I hate when people talk in terms of “rich” and “poor.” I would prefer if dollars amounts were used. I read somewhere in this string or in the linked article that households earning $250,000 where in the top 2.5%. If 97.5% of the households earn less then yes that should be considered rich. However, living in So. Cal with a family of three and a household income of 250,000 is hardly “rich” by my definition of the word. And not my household makes much less than 250,000. Granted a household making 50,000 may have a different definition of the word “rich” than I do which is exactly why I prefer if people use numbers when discussing this topic.

According to the Census Bureau there are approx. 299,000,000 million US citizens. Of that amount 24.6% are under 18 meaning there are approximately 224,250,000 adults. The top 400 riches people in America represent .00000178% of the population and they contributed 1.58% of the total taxes paid. The top 1% contributed 35% of total taxes paid. Does anyone see a problem here?

There may a lot of debate on what total dollar amount should be considered rich, however there isn’t anyone in the world who would argue anyone who is one of the 400 weathliest people in America isn’t rich. If the Democrats want to tax the rich I say increase the tax burden on the top 400 weathiest people in America and leave everyone else alone. You won’t see that suggested because the top 400 wealthiest people in America are the ones who decide who gets elected. If a Democrat proposed such a thing he wouldn’t get any funding, therefore Democrats use words like “rich” and “poor” which are subject in nature.

[Anonymous]

How many total people are in the top 1%?

“The wealthy now pay 6 times more than the poor” Are the weathy 6 times more wealthy than the poor?

I hate when people talk in terms of “rich” and “poor.” I would prefer if dollars amounts were used. I read somewhere in this string or in the linked article that households earning $250,000 where in the top 2.5%. If 97.5% of the households earn less then yes that should be considered rich. However, living in So. Cal with a family of three and a household income of 250,000 is hardly “rich” by my definition of the word. And not my household makes much less than 250,000. Granted a household making 50,000 may have a different definition of the word “rich” than I do which is exactly why I prefer if people use numbers when discussing this topic.

According to the Census Bureau there are approx. 299,000,000 million US citizens. Of that amount 24.6% are under 18 meaning there are approximately 224,250,000 adults. The top 400 riches people in America represent .00000178% of the population and they contributed 1.58% of the total taxes paid. The top 1% contributed 35% of total taxes paid. Does anyone see a problem here?

There may a lot of debate on what total dollar amount should be considered rich, however there isn’t anyone in the world who would argue anyone who is one of the 400 weathliest people in America isn’t rich. If the Democrats want to tax the rich I say increase the tax burden on the top 400 weathiest people in America and leave everyone else alone. You won’t see that suggested because the top 400 wealthiest people in America are the ones who decide who gets elected. If a Democrat proposed such a thing he wouldn’t get any funding, therefore Democrats use words like “rich” and “poor” which are subject in nature.

[Anonymous]

How many total people are in the top 1%?

“The wealthy now pay 6 times more than the poor” Are the weathy 6 times more wealthy than the poor?

I hate when people talk in terms of “rich” and “poor.” I would prefer if dollars amounts were used. I read somewhere in this string or in the linked article that households earning $250,000 where in the top 2.5%. If 97.5% of the households earn less then yes that should be considered rich. However, living in So. Cal with a family of three and a household income of 250,000 is hardly “rich” by my definition of the word. And not my household makes much less than 250,000. Granted a household making 50,000 may have a different definition of the word “rich” than I do which is exactly why I prefer if people use numbers when discussing this topic.

According to the Census Bureau there are approx. 299,000,000 million US citizens. Of that amount 24.6% are under 18 meaning there are approximately 224,250,000 adults. The top 400 riches people in America represent .00000178% of the population and they contributed 1.58% of the total taxes paid. The top 1% contributed 35% of total taxes paid. Does anyone see a problem here?

There may a lot of debate on what total dollar amount should be considered rich, however there isn’t anyone in the world who would argue anyone who is one of the 400 weathliest people in America isn’t rich. If the Democrats want to tax the rich I say increase the tax burden on the top 400 weathiest people in America and leave everyone else alone. You won’t see that suggested because the top 400 wealthiest people in America are the ones who decide who gets elected. If a Democrat proposed such a thing he wouldn’t get any funding, therefore Democrats use words like “rich” and “poor” which are subject in nature.

[Anonymous]

How many total people are in the top 1%?

“The wealthy now pay 6 times more than the poor” Are the weathy 6 times more wealthy than the poor?

I hate when people talk in terms of “rich” and “poor.” I would prefer if dollars amounts were used. I read somewhere in this string or in the linked article that households earning $250,000 where in the top 2.5%. If 97.5% of the households earn less then yes that should be considered rich. However, living in So. Cal with a family of three and a household income of 250,000 is hardly “rich” by my definition of the word. And not my household makes much less than 250,000. Granted a household making 50,000 may have a different definition of the word “rich” than I do which is exactly why I prefer if people use numbers when discussing this topic.

According to the Census Bureau there are approx. 299,000,000 million US citizens. Of that amount 24.6% are under 18 meaning there are approximately 224,250,000 adults. The top 400 riches people in America represent .00000178% of the population and they contributed 1.58% of the total taxes paid. The top 1% contributed 35% of total taxes paid. Does anyone see a problem here?

There may a lot of debate on what total dollar amount should be considered rich, however there isn’t anyone in the world who would argue anyone who is one of the 400 weathliest people in America isn’t rich. If the Democrats want to tax the rich I say increase the tax burden on the top 400 weathiest people in America and leave everyone else alone. You won’t see that suggested because the top 400 wealthiest people in America are the ones who decide who gets elected. If a Democrat proposed such a thing he wouldn’t get any funding, therefore Democrats use words like “rich” and “poor” which are subject in nature.

[Anonymous]

How many total people are in the top 1%?

“The wealthy now pay 6 times more than the poor” Are the weathy 6 times more wealthy than the poor?

I hate when people talk in terms of “rich” and “poor.” I would prefer if dollars amounts were used. I read somewhere in this string or in the linked article that households earning $250,000 where in the top 2.5%. If 97.5% of the households earn less then yes that should be considered rich. However, living in So. Cal with a family of three and a household income of 250,000 is hardly “rich” by my definition of the word. And not my household makes much less than 250,000. Granted a household making 50,000 may have a different definition of the word “rich” than I do which is exactly why I prefer if people use numbers when discussing this topic.

According to the Census Bureau there are approx. 299,000,000 million US citizens. Of that amount 24.6% are under 18 meaning there are approximately 224,250,000 adults. The top 400 riches people in America represent .00000178% of the population and they contributed 1.58% of the total taxes paid. The top 1% contributed 35% of total taxes paid. Does anyone see a problem here?

There may a lot of debate on what total dollar amount should be considered rich, however there isn’t anyone in the world who would argue anyone who is one of the 400 weathliest people in America isn’t rich. If the Democrats want to tax the rich I say increase the tax burden on the top 400 weathiest people in America and leave everyone else alone. You won’t see that suggested because the top 400 wealthiest people in America are the ones who decide who gets elected. If a Democrat proposed such a thing he wouldn’t get any funding, therefore Democrats use words like “rich” and “poor” which are subject in nature.

[hipmatt]

I knew it wasn’t unbiased.

[hipmatt]

I knew it wasn’t unbiased.

[hipmatt]

I knew it wasn’t unbiased.

[hipmatt]

I knew it wasn’t unbiased.

[Author]

Posts