Tim wrote:
For example, how many bombs have Muslims set off in the US, how many
bombs have Christians set off in the US?

you talking about TRUE Moslims, and TRUE Christians?

the answer would be "NONE!"


Definitely agreed on that. Well said.

DSK

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes I've seen notes all over the place and tried to correct the lies in
these notes but haven't seen any policies implemented by Bush that aren't
good for the common man.

Specifically, do you mean economic policies? How about the tax cut which
benefitted the wealthiest 5% as much or more than all others combined?
How about slashing the budget for many programs, from education to
national parks, used by the "average citizen" but the wealthy have no
need of, without any compensating cut in taxes or fees or whatever?

ANd to get back closer to the original thread:

DSK wrote
...And what of Iran? The closest thing they have to a pro-Western secular
oriented middle class recently suffered a big political setback, and the
rulers seem determined to built nukes.

Do you think it will benefit "the common man" in the USA, or anywhere
else in the world, that the Bush Administration is basically sticking
it's head in the sand and saying 'Everything will turn out OK'? Maybe i
shouldn't complain too hard, at least they're pretending to do something
about Korea, after a few years.

DSK

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:38:13 -0400, DSK wrote:

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes I've seen notes all over the place and tried to correct the lies in
these notes but haven't seen any policies implemented by Bush that aren't
good for the common man.

Specifically, do you mean economic policies? How about the tax cut which
benefitted the wealthiest 5% as much or more than all others combined?
How about slashing the budget for many programs, from education to
national parks, used by the "average citizen" but the wealthy have no
need of, without any compensating cut in taxes or fees or whatever?

ANd to get back closer to the original thread:

DSK wrote
...And what of Iran? The closest thing they have to a pro-Western secular
oriented middle class recently suffered a big political setback, and the
rulers seem determined to built nukes.

Do you think it will benefit "the common man" in the USA, or anywhere
else in the world, that the Bush Administration is basically sticking
it's head in the sand and saying 'Everything will turn out OK'? Maybe i
shouldn't complain too hard, at least they're pretending to do something
about Korea, after a few years.

DSK

What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:38:13 -0400, DSK wrote:

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes I've seen notes all over the place and tried to correct the lies in
these notes but haven't seen any policies implemented by Bush that
aren't
good for the common man.

Specifically, do you mean economic policies? How about the tax cut which
benefitted the wealthiest 5% as much or more than all others combined?
How about slashing the budget for many programs, from education to
national parks, used by the "average citizen" but the wealthy have no
need of, without any compensating cut in taxes or fees or whatever?

ANd to get back closer to the original thread:

DSK wrote
...And what of Iran? The closest thing they have to a pro-Western
secular
oriented middle class recently suffered a big political setback, and
the
rulers seem determined to built nukes.

Do you think it will benefit "the common man" in the USA, or anywhere
else in the world, that the Bush Administration is basically sticking
it's head in the sand and saying 'Everything will turn out OK'? Maybe i
shouldn't complain too hard, at least they're pretending to do something
about Korea, after a few years.

DSK

What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?

How are you supposed to cut taxes on those that don't pay taxes????

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:32:10 -0400, PocoLoco wrote:


What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?

In 2000, 38.4%, but then, they also had 30.7% of the pre-tax income.

http://www.osjspm.org/101_taxes.htm

PocoLoco wrote:
What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?

Does it matter?

What percent of the overall personal wealth of the coountry does that 5%
own? Is it more or less than the percent of taxes? What about the
percent of income?

Now, why shouldn't a person (or group of people) who have absurdly large
incomes pay absurdly large taxes? Maybe because they hand over bigger
campaign donations?

DSK

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:56:49 -0400, DSK wrote:

PocoLoco wrote:
What percent of total taxes are paid by the top 5%?

Does it matter?

What percent of the overall personal wealth of the coountry does that 5%
own? Is it more or less than the percent of taxes? What about the
percent of income?

Now, why shouldn't a person (or group of people) who have absurdly large
incomes pay absurdly large taxes? Maybe because they hand over bigger
campaign donations?

DSK
What does ownership of assets have to do with income tax?

I pay property tax on real estate and property tax on automobiles. I pay tax on
interest earned, but not on the principal. Is it your contention that I should?

Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the same rate as
everyone else.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

I'm no way "rich" and never will be, but I do have a problem with the
"The more you make, the higher percent you pay [in tax's] "

I've proven that to myself in former employment, when I was
considerably younger and had a wife and baby to support. I used to work
about as much overtime I could because I had the attitude that "every
little bit helps". That is...untill I got my pay stubs calculated and
saw how much I was paying Uncle Sam for the honor of busting my can!

i always thought that the older guys were a bunch of loafs, but
realized that the.y were telling the truth when they wouldn't work any
overtime, because they felt like it actually cost them financially. I
had to eventually agree.

I do have a reletive that makes good bread... about $36,000 a month. He
owns several endevors. and has worked very hard to get where he is.
Last year he payed over $168,000 in personal tax's, and of course he's
****ed, because he feels like there's no incentive to gain.


Those who wish, can flame me all they want, but
I tend to agree with my cousin.

PocoLoco wrote:
Those who have absurd incomes should pay absurd taxes, but at the same rate as
everyone else.

So, you're a flat-taxer? Are you aware that all flat tax schemes are
REgressive, ie the poor pay a higher share?

The wealthy enjoy greater benefits from the society that supports them.
Why should they not pay a *greater* much less an equal share of the
needed support?

DSK

Tim wrote:
I'm no way "rich" and never will be, but I do have a problem with the
"The more you make, the higher percent you pay [in tax's] "


This is a case where doing the math explains everything.


..... worked very hard to get where he is.
Last year he payed over $168,000 in personal tax's, and of course he's
****ed, because he feels like there's no incentive to gain.


If that were true, he'd be donating all that money instead of keeping it.

Funny how those how complain about paying high taxes don't seem to
complain about the high income that put them there. It's even funnier
when low income people complain about the tax rates of rich people...
somebody has done a superb job marketing this concept!

DSK