[jficquette]

Allan, why should a class pay 40% when they only have 25% of the income?

Allan, my point is our system was set up for fair and equal treatment for all. Never was the system intended to be punitive towards any class. Once you allow the system to treat a miniority class unfairly then its only a matter of time before other injustices pop up.

John

[jficquette]

Allan, why should a class pay 40% when they only have 25% of the income?

Allan, my point is our system was set up for fair and equal treatment for all. Never was the system intended to be punitive towards any class. Once you allow the system to treat a miniority class unfairly then its only a matter of time before other injustices pop up.

John

[jficquette]

Allan, why should a class pay 40% when they only have 25% of the income?

Allan, my point is our system was set up for fair and equal treatment for all. Never was the system intended to be punitive towards any class. Once you allow the system to treat a miniority class unfairly then its only a matter of time before other injustices pop up.

John

[jficquette]

Allan, why should a class pay 40% when they only have 25% of the income?

Allan, my point is our system was set up for fair and equal treatment for all. Never was the system intended to be punitive towards any class. Once you allow the system to treat a miniority class unfairly then its only a matter of time before other injustices pop up.

John

[jficquette]

Allan, why should a class pay 40% when they only have 25% of the income?

Allan, my point is our system was set up for fair and equal treatment for all. Never was the system intended to be punitive towards any class. Once you allow the system to treat a miniority class unfairly then its only a matter of time before other injustices pop up.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John, it avoids mentioning the TOTAL wealth controlled by that 1% and how much is paid in terms of TOTAL taxation on that wealth by that 1%. In other words, there is a glaring disparity on the respective rates paid by Scrooge McDuck (the top 1%) versus Joe Sixpack (the great unwashed middle class).

That was my point.[/quote]

Allan, my point is its not the rates that matter. Its the amount collected and the stats show that the top one percent pay more then they have in 40 years.

What has happened in country is the super rich democrats have succeeded in getting 95% of the democrats off the tax rolls.

Why should the democrats care about taxes when they don’t pay any?? Why should they care about the waste in the goverment when they don’t have to foot the bill?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John, it avoids mentioning the TOTAL wealth controlled by that 1% and how much is paid in terms of TOTAL taxation on that wealth by that 1%. In other words, there is a glaring disparity on the respective rates paid by Scrooge McDuck (the top 1%) versus Joe Sixpack (the great unwashed middle class).

That was my point.[/quote]

Allan, my point is its not the rates that matter. Its the amount collected and the stats show that the top one percent pay more then they have in 40 years.

What has happened in country is the super rich democrats have succeeded in getting 95% of the democrats off the tax rolls.

Why should the democrats care about taxes when they don’t pay any?? Why should they care about the waste in the goverment when they don’t have to foot the bill?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John, it avoids mentioning the TOTAL wealth controlled by that 1% and how much is paid in terms of TOTAL taxation on that wealth by that 1%. In other words, there is a glaring disparity on the respective rates paid by Scrooge McDuck (the top 1%) versus Joe Sixpack (the great unwashed middle class).

That was my point.[/quote]

Allan, my point is its not the rates that matter. Its the amount collected and the stats show that the top one percent pay more then they have in 40 years.

What has happened in country is the super rich democrats have succeeded in getting 95% of the democrats off the tax rolls.

Why should the democrats care about taxes when they don’t pay any?? Why should they care about the waste in the goverment when they don’t have to foot the bill?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John, it avoids mentioning the TOTAL wealth controlled by that 1% and how much is paid in terms of TOTAL taxation on that wealth by that 1%. In other words, there is a glaring disparity on the respective rates paid by Scrooge McDuck (the top 1%) versus Joe Sixpack (the great unwashed middle class).

That was my point.[/quote]

Allan, my point is its not the rates that matter. Its the amount collected and the stats show that the top one percent pay more then they have in 40 years.

What has happened in country is the super rich democrats have succeeded in getting 95% of the democrats off the tax rolls.

Why should the democrats care about taxes when they don’t pay any?? Why should they care about the waste in the goverment when they don’t have to foot the bill?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John, it avoids mentioning the TOTAL wealth controlled by that 1% and how much is paid in terms of TOTAL taxation on that wealth by that 1%. In other words, there is a glaring disparity on the respective rates paid by Scrooge McDuck (the top 1%) versus Joe Sixpack (the great unwashed middle class).

That was my point.[/quote]

Allan, my point is its not the rates that matter. Its the amount collected and the stats show that the top one percent pay more then they have in 40 years.

What has happened in country is the super rich democrats have succeeded in getting 95% of the democrats off the tax rolls.

Why should the democrats care about taxes when they don’t pay any?? Why should they care about the waste in the goverment when they don’t have to foot the bill?

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Borat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.

You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.

I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.[/quote]

Allan, please explain how it avoids mentioning the very top percentage since it speaks to the top 1%.

Thanks

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Borat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.

You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.

I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.[/quote]

Allan, please explain how it avoids mentioning the very top percentage since it speaks to the top 1%.

Thanks

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Borat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.

You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.

I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.[/quote]

Allan, please explain how it avoids mentioning the very top percentage since it speaks to the top 1%.

Thanks

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Borat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.

You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.

I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.[/quote]

Allan, please explain how it avoids mentioning the very top percentage since it speaks to the top 1%.

Thanks

John

[jficquette]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Borat: I think what is being missed here is what we in accounting call the weighted average. The top 1% of earners in this country earn (or, more importantly, control) a staggering percentage of the wealth.

You very correctly point out that while the WSJ article discusses various earning brackets, it conspicuously avoids mentioning the very top percentage or percentages. Breaking the data into quartiles allows for some deft manipulation of the numbers.

I am an avowed conservative, but even I will admit to being infuriated when I see how those that occupy that stratum have ginned the system ruthlessly. Or as the Golden Rule says: “Those with the gold, make the rules”.[/quote]

Allan, please explain how it avoids mentioning the very top percentage since it speaks to the top 1%.

Thanks

John

[Author]

Posts