[SDEngineer]

4plex:

Considering the only “evidence” that they bring forth is their own testimony, it’s ENTIRELY relevent to look at the credibility of those witnesses, and, frankly, people who habitually wear tinfoil hats don’t have much credibility in my eyes.

The burden of proof is on them – not me. I simply point out that a skeptical person is not likely to attach much credibility to the testimony of someone who clearly believes in a great many notions which are far outside of the scientific mainstream.

[SDEngineer]

Dr. Mitchell is a bit of a loon.

Among his other hobbies are paranormal and psychic studies, and he believes he was remotely cured of cancer by a teenage psychic named Adam Dreamhealer (note: he was never definitively diagnosed with cancer in the first place).

[SDEngineer]

Dr. Mitchell is a bit of a loon.

Among his other hobbies are paranormal and psychic studies, and he believes he was remotely cured of cancer by a teenage psychic named Adam Dreamhealer (note: he was never definitively diagnosed with cancer in the first place).

[SDEngineer]

Dr. Mitchell is a bit of a loon.

Among his other hobbies are paranormal and psychic studies, and he believes he was remotely cured of cancer by a teenage psychic named Adam Dreamhealer (note: he was never definitively diagnosed with cancer in the first place).

[SDEngineer]

Dr. Mitchell is a bit of a loon.

Among his other hobbies are paranormal and psychic studies, and he believes he was remotely cured of cancer by a teenage psychic named Adam Dreamhealer (note: he was never definitively diagnosed with cancer in the first place).

[SDEngineer]

Dr. Mitchell is a bit of a loon.

Among his other hobbies are paranormal and psychic studies, and he believes he was remotely cured of cancer by a teenage psychic named Adam Dreamhealer (note: he was never definitively diagnosed with cancer in the first place).

[SDEngineer]

[quote=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.

[/quote]

That same top 1% (household incomes 350K+) ALSO controls more of the total income and assets of the whole pie than they have in 40 years (actually, probably closer to 100 years). The top 1% has been experiencing an income increase in the double digit percentage rate over the past decade – compared to the middle class, which has seen wage increases in the low single digits, and overall a net decrease in income after taking inflation into account. No wonder the top 1%’s share of the tax burden is increasing – but it’s not increasing at anywhere near the same rate as their incomes relative to the median income for a US citizen. The rich are getting richer, yet you are attempting to make it seem like they are being taxed into the poorhouse.

Of course, it reduces the shock value of the “top 1% pays 40% of the taxes” when you crunch the numbers and realize that same top 1% also MAKES somewhere close to 25% of the total INCOME in the country (and the top 10% roughly 50% of the total income), which is why I’ve never seen this argument used by anyone who ever reveals exactly how large a slice of the pie that top 1% actually is in terms of the overall income in the US.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=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.

[/quote]

That same top 1% (household incomes 350K+) ALSO controls more of the total income and assets of the whole pie than they have in 40 years (actually, probably closer to 100 years). The top 1% has been experiencing an income increase in the double digit percentage rate over the past decade – compared to the middle class, which has seen wage increases in the low single digits, and overall a net decrease in income after taking inflation into account. No wonder the top 1%’s share of the tax burden is increasing – but it’s not increasing at anywhere near the same rate as their incomes relative to the median income for a US citizen. The rich are getting richer, yet you are attempting to make it seem like they are being taxed into the poorhouse.

Of course, it reduces the shock value of the “top 1% pays 40% of the taxes” when you crunch the numbers and realize that same top 1% also MAKES somewhere close to 25% of the total INCOME in the country (and the top 10% roughly 50% of the total income), which is why I’ve never seen this argument used by anyone who ever reveals exactly how large a slice of the pie that top 1% actually is in terms of the overall income in the US.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=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.

[/quote]

That same top 1% (household incomes 350K+) ALSO controls more of the total income and assets of the whole pie than they have in 40 years (actually, probably closer to 100 years). The top 1% has been experiencing an income increase in the double digit percentage rate over the past decade – compared to the middle class, which has seen wage increases in the low single digits, and overall a net decrease in income after taking inflation into account. No wonder the top 1%’s share of the tax burden is increasing – but it’s not increasing at anywhere near the same rate as their incomes relative to the median income for a US citizen. The rich are getting richer, yet you are attempting to make it seem like they are being taxed into the poorhouse.

Of course, it reduces the shock value of the “top 1% pays 40% of the taxes” when you crunch the numbers and realize that same top 1% also MAKES somewhere close to 25% of the total INCOME in the country (and the top 10% roughly 50% of the total income), which is why I’ve never seen this argument used by anyone who ever reveals exactly how large a slice of the pie that top 1% actually is in terms of the overall income in the US.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=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.

[/quote]

That same top 1% (household incomes 350K+) ALSO controls more of the total income and assets of the whole pie than they have in 40 years (actually, probably closer to 100 years). The top 1% has been experiencing an income increase in the double digit percentage rate over the past decade – compared to the middle class, which has seen wage increases in the low single digits, and overall a net decrease in income after taking inflation into account. No wonder the top 1%’s share of the tax burden is increasing – but it’s not increasing at anywhere near the same rate as their incomes relative to the median income for a US citizen. The rich are getting richer, yet you are attempting to make it seem like they are being taxed into the poorhouse.

Of course, it reduces the shock value of the “top 1% pays 40% of the taxes” when you crunch the numbers and realize that same top 1% also MAKES somewhere close to 25% of the total INCOME in the country (and the top 10% roughly 50% of the total income), which is why I’ve never seen this argument used by anyone who ever reveals exactly how large a slice of the pie that top 1% actually is in terms of the overall income in the US.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=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.

[/quote]

That same top 1% (household incomes 350K+) ALSO controls more of the total income and assets of the whole pie than they have in 40 years (actually, probably closer to 100 years). The top 1% has been experiencing an income increase in the double digit percentage rate over the past decade – compared to the middle class, which has seen wage increases in the low single digits, and overall a net decrease in income after taking inflation into account. No wonder the top 1%’s share of the tax burden is increasing – but it’s not increasing at anywhere near the same rate as their incomes relative to the median income for a US citizen. The rich are getting richer, yet you are attempting to make it seem like they are being taxed into the poorhouse.

Of course, it reduces the shock value of the “top 1% pays 40% of the taxes” when you crunch the numbers and realize that same top 1% also MAKES somewhere close to 25% of the total INCOME in the country (and the top 10% roughly 50% of the total income), which is why I’ve never seen this argument used by anyone who ever reveals exactly how large a slice of the pie that top 1% actually is in terms of the overall income in the US.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=jficquette]

That’s just politics. They are more concerned with getting grant money to do their projects and keeping their job. This means appeasing the Global Warming crowd to the extent possible.

[/quote]

Really? Considering the largest source of those grants is the US Government which has been HOSTILE to GW since Bush took office, that doesn’t make any sense.

Besides, energy and oil companies pay better.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=jficquette]

That’s just politics. They are more concerned with getting grant money to do their projects and keeping their job. This means appeasing the Global Warming crowd to the extent possible.

[/quote]

Really? Considering the largest source of those grants is the US Government which has been HOSTILE to GW since Bush took office, that doesn’t make any sense.

Besides, energy and oil companies pay better.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=jficquette]

That’s just politics. They are more concerned with getting grant money to do their projects and keeping their job. This means appeasing the Global Warming crowd to the extent possible.

[/quote]

Really? Considering the largest source of those grants is the US Government which has been HOSTILE to GW since Bush took office, that doesn’t make any sense.

Besides, energy and oil companies pay better.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=jficquette]

That’s just politics. They are more concerned with getting grant money to do their projects and keeping their job. This means appeasing the Global Warming crowd to the extent possible.

[/quote]

Really? Considering the largest source of those grants is the US Government which has been HOSTILE to GW since Bush took office, that doesn’t make any sense.

Besides, energy and oil companies pay better.

[Author]

Posts