On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:34:34 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:

On Jan 22, 6:23*am, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:20:07 -0800 (PST), Jack
wrote:
How can you spin two new tax brackets at even higher levels as "the
rich got a HUGE tax break as their incomes skyrocketed"?

because the marginal rate of tax increase above the middle class is
regressive. the BIGGEST INCREASE in marginal tax rates comes in the
middle class tax band

Ahh... now it's starting to make sense. You want the nominal tax rate
to be 15%, so the progression for the next bracket would be about 18%
for you. Then you'd like the next brackets to ramp up even more so
they'll make up for what you'd fail to pay.

uh does anybody speak this language? looks like sanskrit. make up for
what i fail to pay? paying taxes is paying taxes.

Sorry, the nominal rate is 25%, the 15% and 10% brackets are breaks
for the poor. You'll have to keep contributing your share.

like i said. the middle class gets screwed. those who are rich...who
get their money not from productive labor, but by income from capital
gains

are taxed at 15%. i pay, as the right winger admits, 25%. the
ultrarich pay 15%.

and he thinks god meant it to be this way and it benefits the middle
class because they should pay all the bills for the rich anyhow.


"Feeling overtaxed? Under the U.S. income tax system, most of the
taxes collected are supposed to be paid by the people who make the
most money. Thanks to President Bush's tax cuts, that is exactly the
way the system works, says the U.S. Treasury Department.
According to the Office of Tax Analysis, the U.S. individual income
tax is "highly progressive," with a small group of higher-income
taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/income...hopaysmost.htm

do you know what a 2nd derivative is? no, it's not a financial
instrument. it's calculus.

there is a progressive tax structure in this country in name only. the
rate at which it becomes progressive is the 2nd derviative...the
change in the change of the rate

and from the poor to the middle class there's a 60% jump. to those
making over $400K it's about 40% from the middle class .

but this is IRRELEVANT. because the WEALTHIEST pay only 15%.

yes, that's right ladies and gennulmen...the richest people in america
have a tax rate

less than the poorest people in america.

•In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of
taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual
income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

of course, bush became president in 2001 so hadn't had time to work
the system yet to steal from the middle class.

and, no, this isn't the latest data available. let's look at what's
happened under bush, OK?

from the congressional budget office:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=957

The new CBO data document that income inequality continued to widen in
2004. The average after-tax income of the richest one percent of
households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004, after
adjusting for inflation, a one-year increase of nearly $146,000, or 20
percent. This increase was the largest increase in 15 years,
measured both in percentage terms and in real dollars.[2]

In contrast, the income of the middle fifth of the population rose
$1,700, or 3.6 percent, to $48,400 in 2004. The income of the bottom
fifth rose a scant $200 (or 1.4 percent) to $14,700.

The new data also highlight the degree to which income gains over the
past quarter-century have become increasingly concentrated at the top
of the income scale. Since 1979 — the first year for which the CBO
date are available — income gains among high-income households have
dwarfed those of middle- and low-income households. Over this 25-year
period:

¦The average after-tax income of the top one percent of the population
nearly tripled, rising from $314,000 to nearly $868,000 — for a total
increase of $554,000, or 176 percent. (Figures throughout this paper
were adjusted by CBO for inflation and are presented in 2004 dollars.)

¦By contrast, the average after-tax income of the middle fifth of the
population rose a relatively modest 21 percent, or $8,500, reaching
$48,400 in 2004.
---------------------

so, as i stated, the middle class is getting ****ed. and ****ed BIG
TIME

the RICH had an increase of TWENTY PERCENT IN ONE YEAR

the middle class? THREE PERCENT

that's a royal ****ing. big time

in 30 years, the RICH TRIPLED THEIR INCOME

the middle class? less than one percent a year.

300%...10%/year

vs 1% a year for the middle class

so tell me again how rough the rich have it, OK?



•The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 33.7 percent of all individual
income taxes in 2002. This group of taxpayers has paid more than 30
percent of individual income taxes since 1995. Moreover, since 1990
this group’s tax share has grown faster than their income share.

So stop your whining.

go ahead. continue reading your fairy tales. no wonder you're right
wing.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:00:38 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:53:33 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

but this is IRRELEVANT. because the WEALTHIEST pay only 15%.

yes, that's right ladies and gennulmen...the richest people in america
have a tax rate

less than the poorest people in america.


Umm
The bottom 42% don't pay any income taxes at all.
That is a zero rate.

sure they do. they pay sales tax, FICA, etc. conservatives just dont
think these count

I agree they should make the cap gains tax progressive with the
ability to average over several years to account for a one time
windfall.

makes sense to me.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:53:33 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

but this is IRRELEVANT. because the WEALTHIEST pay only 15%.

yes, that's right ladies and gennulmen...the richest people in america
have a tax rate

less than the poorest people in america.


Umm
The bottom 42% don't pay any income taxes at all.
That is a zero rate.
I agree they should make the cap gains tax progressive with the
ability to average over several years to account for a one time
windfall.
They already do that with the 5% rate for $65k. Maybe when you get
over $150k go to 20% and go up from there to some number.


That's quite a flat tax!

--
Nom=de=Plume