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."

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:11:37 -0400, DSK wrote:

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

The poor pay a higher share than whom?

If we all paid 25% of our income, then we'd all be paying 25% of our income!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:11:37 -0400, DSK wrote:

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

The poor pay a higher share than whom?

If we all paid 25% of our income, then we'd all be paying 25% of our
income!

It is a typical liebral ploy to try and redefine words.......

The rest of the word is catching on to the flat tax, unfortunately the
brain dead liebrals in this country insist on taking us down the
"progressive": dead end road.......even the Russians figured it out.




--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:10:56 -0400, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"PocoLoco" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:11:37 -0400, DSK wrote:

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

The poor pay a higher share than whom?

If we all paid 25% of our income, then we'd all be paying 25% of our
income!

It is a typical liebral ploy to try and redefine words.......

The rest of the word is catching on to the flat tax, unfortunately the
brain dead liebrals in this country insist on taking us down the
"progressive": dead end road.......even the Russians figured it out.


Crazy.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:10:56 -0400, P. Fritz wrote:


The rest of the word is catching on to the flat tax, unfortunately the
brain dead liebrals in this country insist on taking us down the
"progressive": dead end road.......even the Russians figured it out.


Great point! Now, we should be looking to the Russians for leadership.