Note the amount spent on Defense.

Are all the monies spent in Iraq listed there?

-jav

Javier Henderson wrote:

Note the amount spent on Defense.


Are all the monies spent in Iraq listed there?

-jav

'Hard to know. The summary there is supposed to describe the entire
budget at a very high level. It is also not forward-looking so it does
not account for how spending my evolve. I am also unclear on where the
money for Iraqi governmental development shows up - in Defense, Foreign
Aid, Entitlements ??? I think the larger point holds though - the US
spends way more on domestic Entitlements than any other single Federal
government initiative.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On 02 Feb 2006 12:14:50 EST, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Javier Henderson wrote:

Note the amount spent on Defense.


Are all the monies spent in Iraq listed there?

-jav

'Hard to know. The summary there is supposed to describe the entire
budget at a very high level. It is also not forward-looking so it does
not account for how spending my evolve. I am also unclear on where the
money for Iraqi governmental development shows up - in Defense, Foreign
Aid, Entitlements ??? I think the larger point holds though - the US

Defense. Except for supplementals, the cost of deployment comes from the
Pentagon's budget. That has ramifications on procurement programs.


spends way more on domestic Entitlements than any other single Federal
government initiative.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 09:20:17 -0500, Renata wrote:

Since you have such issue with stealing, how come you're not raving
about how the govmt is stealing from just about everyone, including
future generations, but not the top 1% who they shovel money back to,
to fund this little skirmish in Irq, and various other government
programs (govmt has grown greatly under Bush) that primarily are of
benefit to corporations rather than The People?

Renata


Just to inject a few facts into this. From the 2003 IRS data (latest year
for which the statistics are available):

Of wage earners, the top 1, 5, 10 , 25 and 50 percent of taxpayers pay the
following percent of income taxes
1% pay 34.27%
5% pay 54.36%
10% pay 65.84%
25% pay 83.88%
50% pay 96.54%

So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage earners are
carrying the load for the bottom 50%.

Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls


On 01 Feb 2006 12:44:50 EST, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:
-snip
They steal from one group of citizens to give to another. It ironic that the same people who
(rightfully) howl about accounting mischief like the cases at Adelphia
and Tyco have no moral problem with half the Federal budget being built
on a not-dissimillar scam.

-snip-


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage
earners are carrying the load for the bottom 50%.


I suppose many have seen this. For those who have not...


DASCHLE'S DINER

Every day at a few minutes past noon ten men walk into Daschle's Diner
on the outskirts of Washington D.C. These are men of habit, a habit
which dictates that they will all order the exact same meals every
day, and every day the final tab will come to the exact same total.
The ten meals are priced at $10 each, so the tab was $100. One hundred
dollars each and every day.

Does every man pay the price of his $10 meal as he leaves? Not at
Daschle' s Diner. No sir! At Daschle's Diner the motto is "From each
according to their ability, to each according to their hunger." So,
each man was charged for his meal according to his ability to pay!

So, every day the ten diners would finish their lunch and lineup in
exactly the same order as they pass the cashier and leave. The first
four men would walk right past the cashier without paying a thing. A
free meal!

The fifth man in line would hand over $1 as he left. At least he was
paying something.

Diner number six would hand over $3 to the cashier. Number seven would
pay $7.

Diner number eight paid $12. That was more than the value of his meal,
but he, like those who followed him in line, had been very lucky in
life and was, therefore, he was in a position to pay for his meal and
for a part of someone else's.

Diner number nine paid $18.

Then comes diner number 10. He is the wealthiest of the ten diners.
He's taken some real chances and has worked well into the night when
the other diners were home with their families, and it has paid off.
When number 10 gets to the cashier he pays the balance of the bill. He
forks over $59.

One day an amazing thing happens. It seems that Daschle has a partner
in Daschle's Diner. The partner runs an upscale restaurant, Trentt's
Trattoria, located in a wealthier section of D.C. Times have been good
and the partnership has been raking in record profits, so the partner,
who controls 51% of the partnership, orders a 20% reduction in the
price of meals.

The next day the ten diners arrive on schedule. They sit down and eat
their same meals. This time, though, the 20% price cut has gone into
effect and the bill comes to $80. Eight bucks per diner.

The diners line up at the cashier in the same order as before. For the
first four diners, no change. They march out without paying a cent.
Free meal.

Diner number five and six lay claim to their portion of the $20 price
cut right away. Five used to pay $1. Today, though, he walks out with
the first four and pays nothing. That's one more diner on the
"freeloader's" list.

Diner number six cuts his share of the tab from $3 to $2. Life is
good.

Diner number seven? His tab before the price cut was $7. He now gets
by with just $5.

Diner number eight lowers his payment from $12 to $9. He moves ever-
so-slightly into the freeloading category.

Next is diner number nine. He's still paying more than his share, but
that's OK, he's been successful (lucky) and can afford it. He pays
$12.

Now --- here comes diner number ten. He, too, wants his share of the
$20 price cut, so his share of the tab goes from $59 to $52. He saves
$7.00 per day!

Outside the restaurant there is unrest. The first nine diners have
convened on the street corner to discuss the events of the day. Diner
six spots diner ten with $7 in his hand. "Not fair!" he screams. "I
only got one dollar. He's got seven!"

Diner five, who now eats for free, is similarly outraged. "I only got
one dollar too! This is wrong!" Diner even joins the rumblings; "Hey!
I only get two bucks back! Why should he get seven?"

The unrest spreads. Now the first four men - men who have been getting
a free ride all along - join in. They demand to know why they didn't
share in the savings from the $20 price cut! Sure, they haven't been
paying for their meals anyway, but they do have other bills to pay and
they felt that a share of the $20 savings should have gone to them.

Now we have a mob. The laws of Democracy - mob rule - take over and
they turn on the tenth diner. They grab him, tie him up, then take him
to the top of a hill and lynch him.

At the bottom of the hill proprietor Daschle watches the goings-on,
and smiles.

The next day nine men show up at Dashle's Diner for their noon meal.
When the meal is over they're $52 short.

Javier Henderson wrote:
Note the amount spent on Defense.


Are all the monies spent in Iraq listed there?

-jav

The summary that I saw in the paper today IIRC was very very close to
so-called 'entitlement' spending. And did NOT include Iraq or
afganistan. Bush does this every time. of course iraq and afg would
only add another 10-20%.

--
Thank you,



"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Javier Henderson wrote:

Note the amount spent on Defense.



Are all the monies spent in Iraq listed there?

-jav


'Hard to know. The summary there is supposed to describe the entire
budget at a very high level. It is also not forward-looking so it does
not account for how spending my evolve. I am also unclear on where the
money for Iraqi governmental development shows up - in Defense, Foreign
Aid, Entitlements ??? I think the larger point holds though - the US
spends way more on domestic Entitlements than any other single Federal
government initiative.



No, not according to the cart I saw today. It was virtually even, and
thats without iraq, afganistan, WOT, et all. These wars have not been
included in the general budget for years now since they began. First
years was the claim that we couldnt predict the cost, recently they
don't even give an excuse. But perhaps its because it would eliminate
the statement that entitlements cost more than defence. IIRC
'entitlements' were about 10-20B over defence, which would change if the
"wars" were included.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on SS to disappear. Remember, SS is a
big chunk of the taxes collected, andI don't think they want to reduce
the amount collected. I agree with killing SS from the perspective that
the government is just taking this money and has no intention of
returning it to us in the form of SS payouts.

I think the govt is trying to find a sophisticated way to keep bringing
in the SS payments but stop giving SS payouts.


Spending cuts have traditionally been the upside to 'loosing' to
Republicans. Maybe *next* time if the Greens Party or the Democrats
don't win, the Republicans will, LOL.


--
Thank you,



"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16

Joe Barta wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:


So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage
earners are carrying the load for the bottom 50%.



I suppose many have seen this. For those who have not...


DASCHLE'S DINER

Every day at a few minutes past noon ten men walk into Daschle's Diner
on the outskirts of Washington D.C. These are men of habit, a habit
which dictates that they will all order the exact same meals every
day, and every day the final tab will come to the exact same total.
The ten meals are priced at $10 each, so the tab was $100. One hundred
dollars each and every day.

Does every man pay the price of his $10 meal as he leaves? Not at
Daschle' s Diner. No sir! At Daschle's Diner the motto is "From each
according to their ability, to each according to their hunger." So,
each man was charged for his meal according to his ability to pay!

So, every day the ten diners would finish their lunch and lineup in
exactly the same order as they pass the cashier and leave. The first
four men would walk right past the cashier without paying a thing. A
free meal!

The fifth man in line would hand over $1 as he left. At least he was
paying something.

Diner number six would hand over $3 to the cashier. Number seven would
pay $7.

Diner number eight paid $12. That was more than the value of his meal,
but he, like those who followed him in line, had been very lucky in
life and was, therefore, he was in a position to pay for his meal and
for a part of someone else's.

Diner number nine paid $18.

Then comes diner number 10. He is the wealthiest of the ten diners.
He's taken some real chances and has worked well into the night when
the other diners were home with their families, and it has paid off.
When number 10 gets to the cashier he pays the balance of the bill. He
forks over $59.



In the US is the folks in the middle that work the hardest, and the ones
on top that tend to be lucky.



One day an amazing thing happens. It seems that Daschle has a partner
in Daschle's Diner. The partner runs an upscale restaurant, Trentt's
Trattoria, located in a wealthier section of D.C. Times have been good
and the partnership has been raking in record profits, so the partner,
who controls 51% of the partnership, orders a 20% reduction in the
price of meals.

The next day the ten diners arrive on schedule. They sit down and eat
their same meals. This time, though, the 20% price cut has gone into
effect and the bill comes to $80. Eight bucks per diner.

The diners line up at the cashier in the same order as before. For the
first four diners, no change. They march out without paying a cent.
Free meal.

Diner number five and six lay claim to their portion of the $20 price
cut right away. Five used to pay $1. Today, though, he walks out with
the first four and pays nothing. That's one more diner on the
"freeloader's" list.


I thought each man payed according to his ability. What happened to
Five's ability? You can't just change the rules in the middle of the
game can you?


--
Thank you,



"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16

dnoyeB wrote:

In the US is the folks in the middle that work the hardest, and
the ones on top that tend to be lucky.

You may be right. As with many places around the US, I live near a few
industrial parks. I've always noticed the number of Cadillacs and
Lincolns that are parked right near the front door well after business
hours.

Years ago I had a lucky boss like that. Was a millionaire many times
over. Very often he'd be in his office making phone calls, doing
paperwork or whatever long after everyone else went home. Matter of
fact, the guy had a cot in a small room just off his office and had
been known to spend the night there from time to time.

I'm with you... I say he was damn lucky to have worked so hard to
build his business and his fortune.

Joe Barta

Joe Barta wrote:
dnoyeB wrote:


In the US is the folks in the middle that work the hardest, and
the ones on top that tend to be lucky.


You may be right. As with many places around the US, I live near a few
industrial parks. I've always noticed the number of Cadillacs and
Lincolns that are parked right near the front door well after business
hours.

Years ago I had a lucky boss like that. Was a millionaire many times
over. Very often he'd be in his office making phone calls, doing
paperwork or whatever long after everyone else went home. Matter of
fact, the guy had a cot in a small room just off his office and had
been known to spend the night there from time to time.

I'm with you... I say he was damn lucky to have worked so hard to
build his business and his fortune.

Joe Barta

I think he was indeed lucky to be able to have his hard work be so
fruitful. There are plenty small business owners that work very hard
and it has paid off. But they don't work harder than the people they
employ. They wouldn't stand for it.

--
Thank you,



"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:38:59 GMT, Joe Barta wrote:

dnoyeB wrote:

In the US is the folks in the middle that work the hardest, and
the ones on top that tend to be lucky.

You may be right. As with many places around the US, I live near a few
industrial parks. I've always noticed the number of Cadillacs and
Lincolns that are parked right near the front door well after business
hours.

Years ago I had a lucky boss like that. Was a millionaire many times
over. Very often he'd be in his office making phone calls, doing
paperwork or whatever long after everyone else went home. Matter of
fact, the guy had a cot in a small room just off his office and had
been known to spend the night there from time to time.

I'm with you... I say he was damn lucky to have worked so hard to
build his business and his fortune.

Joe Barta

When I hear folks complain about the "rich" not being taxed enough, I think of
the folks making $20k a year and paying 25% and of Bill Gates..if he only paid
1%, he's pay more in one year than most folks pay in a lifetime..

bottom line: how many good jobs have you had where the owner was poor?



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

dnoyeB wrote:

In the US is the folks in the middle that work the hardest, and
the ones on top that tend to be lucky.

Reminds me of a Jack Handey quote...

"Children need encouragement. If a kid gets an answer right, tell him
it was a lucky guess. That way he develops a good, lucky feeling."

Joe Barta

dnoyeB wrote:

I think he was indeed lucky to be able to have his hard work be so
fruitful.

His labor being fruitful had more to do with luck.

Who has a better chance of making a fortune... a hard working hourly
punch press operator or a hard working real estate developer? Seems to
me "luck" has very little to do with it. There are other factors that
have MUCH more influence over whether someone makes their fortune in
this world.

There are plenty small business owners that work very
hard and it has paid off.

Absolutely. The opportunity is there for anyone with the guts and
perseverance to do it.

But they don't work harder than the
people they employ.

I'd say that's complete nonsense, but I suppose that depends on your
definition of "work".

They wouldn't stand for it.

You lost me here. Who exactly wouldn't stand for what exactly?

Joe Barta

dnoyeB wrote:

I think he was indeed lucky to be able to have his hard work be so
fruitful.

His labor being fruitful had little to do with luck.

Who has a better chance of making a fortune... a hard working hourly
punch press operator or a hard working real estate developer? Seems to
me "luck" has very little to do with it. There are other factors that
have MUCH more influence over whether someone makes their fortune in
this world.

There are plenty small business owners that work very
hard and it has paid off.

Absolutely. The opportunity is there for anyone with the guts and
perseverance to do it.

But they don't work harder than the
people they employ.

I'd say that's complete nonsense, but I suppose that depends on your
definition of "work".

They wouldn't stand for it.

You lost me here. Who exactly wouldn't stand for what exactly?

Joe Barta

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage earners
are carrying the load for the bottom 50%.

Could that be because they have no money?

How about showing the average income for each of your tax categories?


--
It's turtles, all the way down

Larry Blanchard wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage
earners are carrying the load for the bottom 50%.

Could that be because they have no money?

How about showing the average income for each of your tax
categories?

It's interesting how we view taxes and who should pay what.

Let's say 5 men are stranded on an island. They find a banana. As can
be expected, they agree to carve that banana into 5 equal sections and
share it.

Let's say they make a fire, and in order to keep that fire going for
one day they need 100 lbs of wood. Again, as can be expected, they
agree that each man is responsible for gathering 20 lbs of wood per
day.

Now imagine a couple of those men get together and decide that, for
whatever reason, it's not fair that they gather their full share of
wood and that the others should carry more of the load.

Now, I understand that the notion of progressive taxation is a
practical necessity, but it's still an interesting thought. I suppose
we all have our own ideas about what's "fair".

Joe Barta

Larry Blanchard wrote in news:11u76bhe8bj0646
@corp.supernews.com:

Could that be because they have no money?

How about showing the average income for each of your tax categories?


Dagnabit Larry, that would just put context to the percentages.

( :-) ) ....

--
Regards,

JT
Speaking only for myself....

In article ,
says...
Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage earners
are carrying the load for the bottom 50%.

Could that be because they have no money?

How about showing the average income for each of your tax categories?

How about effective tax rate by income? (2001 data is the most
recent I could find)


Earning Effective
Percentile Tax Rate
99 - 100% 24.1%
95 - 100% 20.8%
90 - 100% 18.7%
80 - 100% 16.3%
60 - 80% 7.2%
40 - 60% 3.8%
20 - 40% .3%
0 - 20% -5.6%

--
Keith

dnoyeB wrote:
SNIP


In the US is the folks in the middle that work the hardest, and the ones
on top that tend to be lucky.

Before we move on - have you ever actually *run* a company or at least
been in charge of a significant staff of people? Or are you just peddling
more class-envy? Class envy is beneath the dignity of any civilized
person, BTW.

You statement is baldly false in most cases. There a people who
are wealthy that have not earned it, of course - say those who get it
via inheritence - but they are the minority. The vast majority of wealth
is earned by owning/running businesses. And you are seriously kidding
yourself if you think the middle class works the hardest. "Harder", I
believe, is probably most easily measured by number of working hours
expended. (I have had jobs that involved physical labor and jobs that
were essentially mental, and the mentally-centric jobs are just as hard
to do, and perhaps more difficult. So, I don't buy the argument that
physical labor necessarily makes you a "harder worker", though every
union rep tries to sell that nonsense at contract time.) By that
measure, poor people work even harder than the middle class for far less. And the working rich
- corporate execs, business owners, etc. - work far harder than
either of them, almost without exception by this measure. I am not saying
the wealthy deserve any special commendation for their hard work - they
are handsomly rewarded for it. But the classist argument you put forth
above is just nonsense (in *most*, but not all cases).

Luck/good fortune/timing and so on plays some role in success, but it
is not the major determinant. Luck is most usually trotted out as
the basis for success by people who are not all that successful and need
to rationalize their own mediocrity or failure. I know plenty of people -
myself among them - who grew up in very meager circumstances, had no
particular connections, didn't go to the "right" schools, and still
managed to become comfortably successful. Some of these people I know
are flat out wealthy, and some are fabulously rich. So, no, I don't buy
the "luck" argument at all.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Larry Blanchard wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:


So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage earners
are carrying the load for the bottom 50%.


Could that be because they have no money?

How about showing the average income for each of your tax categories?



Why bother? The discussion here is refutation of Renata's claim that the
government "shovels money" at the top 1% of wage earners. This claim has
now been thoroughly refuted . In fact, the exact opposite has been
established, it is the wealthy that shovel money at the government in
large quantities. This is indisputable unless one of you can show the
statistics cited by M&J as being false. This is typical - when you lose
an argument, you and your ilk like to shift the discussion to some
subsidiary concern having nothing to do with the central premise
instead of just admitting that you are ideologically-driven without
regard to fact or Reality.

But let's play your Silly Little Marxist Game. The issue is not what the
lower wage earners pay. As you suggest, they do not have the means to do
so. The issue is what the upper category wage earners pay. They are
paying the freight for a society that knows no personal or monetary
self-retraint. They are expected to pay for every personal malfunction,
bad choice, and self-indulgence of the vast majority of the population
at-large. Are you poor and had 10 kids anyway? Tap the rich. Are you a
drug abuser and now need help cleaning up? Tap the rich. Have you
squandered your youth and middle age, failing to save for your
retirement? Tap the rich. Did you move to a place that cannot afford to
educate its young? Tap the rich. Do you like great art, but cannot
afford it? Tap the rich. Do you want radio and TV content that suits
your personal collectivist politics and none is available through
commercial outlets? Tap the rich. The list is long and putrid.

Remember, 1% of the population (just under 3 Million people in the US)
is paying over 1/3 the public services cost for about 280 million other
citizens. That is abusive, it is criminal, and it is wrong.

Even if I actually bought into the idea that it's OK for government to
be in the do-gooding business (I don't), this degree of imbalance is
simply criminal. If the top 1% have to pick up that much of the tab,
then they should at the very least get that much voice in setting social
policy, determining who gets benefits, and what behaviors are excluded
from care. We have the iniquitous arrangement that the middle-class and
poor get to decide what the government does and does not take care of
(by dint of their numbers in voting) and the wealthy get a gun stuck to
their head to pay for it whether they like it or not. This is not
democracy, it is theft.

To help you and others of your worldview get a grip on how Reality
actually operates, I suggest you go read arguably the best book ever
written on this subject. It explores just what happens when the wealthy
- the instruments of growth and properity for everyone - go on strike.
Just what would happen if that 1% said, "The heck with it, I'm not
picking up the tab for everyone else anymore. I'm going to go live in
the woods." The book is "Atlas Shrugged" by Rand and the exposition of
this question is brilliant. (For the record, I have my disagreements
with Rand in other areas, but this book is right on the numbers.)


P.S. If you cannot afford the book, I'll send you a copy...





--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

Why bother? The discussion here is refutation of Renata's claim that the
government "shovels money" at the top 1% of wage earners. This claim has
now been thoroughly refuted . In fact, the exact opposite has been
established, it is the wealthy that shovel money at the government in
large quantities. This is indisputable unless one of you can show the
statistics cited by M&J as being false.

Or, of course, if you can show that they are receiving more from
the government than they return in taxes.

Most of that welfare for the wealthy is not paid directly to the
wealthy
themselves, but rather spent in some way from which they directly
benefit.

Case in point, the football stadium built in Baltimore for Art Model.
(who was also paid $2,000,000 in cash) to take the Browns from
Cleveland to Baltimore. That he (presumeably) paid some of it back
in taxes only mitigates it a little.

--

FF

"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
You statement is baldly false in most cases. There a people who
are wealthy that have not earned it, of course - say those who get it
via inheritence - but they are the minority.

Two members of that and the minority that come easily to mind are the two
left bookends from Massachusetts.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

So, no, I don't buy
the "luck" argument at all.


Cooking the books helps.

Lobby Dosser wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

So, no, I don't buy
the "luck" argument at all.

Cooking the books helps.

I have a friend... good guy... but he has this negativity about him.

When you talk to him it becomes clear that he sees the world in terms
of "us" and "them". "Us", is all the "regular people"... good, decent,
hardworking and honest.

"Them" is anyone that achieved any kind of success in the world
(monetary or otherwise). "Them" are the business owners and the
bosses, the leaders and the politicians and the successful
professionals.

"Them" are bad people... bad, dishonest, generally lazy, not very nice
and by simple luck of the draw are in a position to exploit the system
and exploit "us".... and they are not bashful about doing so. Even if
someone begins life as one of "us", once any success is achieved, it
becomes obvious how they achieved it... we all know how "they" achieve
success.

If one of "them" screws up and loses his fortune, unless he has done
something extremely distasteful, he joins (or rejoins) the ranks of
"us"... and of course, the reason for his troubles is... you guessed
it... "them".

Joe Barta

wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

Why bother? The discussion here is refutation of Renata's claim that the
government "shovels money" at the top 1% of wage earners. This claim has
now been thoroughly refuted . In fact, the exact opposite has been
established, it is the wealthy that shovel money at the government in
large quantities. This is indisputable unless one of you can show the
statistics cited by M&J as being false.


Or, of course, if you can show that they are receiving more from
the government than they return in taxes.

Most of that welfare for the wealthy is not paid directly to the
wealthy
themselves, but rather spent in some way from which they directly
benefit.

Case in point, the football stadium built in Baltimore for Art Model.
(who was also paid $2,000,000 in cash) to take the Browns from
Cleveland to Baltimore. That he (presumeably) paid some of it back
in taxes only mitigates it a little.


This is also an abomination which I (consistently) oppose. When I say No
Welfare For Anyone, I mean *No* and *Anyone*. The rich, the poor, and
the in-between should pay their own way. For those who really are in
desparate straits through no fault of their own, those of us able to
fund charity have a moral obligation to pitch in.

But this moral obligation ought not to be encoded in law. Why? For the
same reason most of us support the separation of Church and State - to
keep individual moral precepts and opinions out of the hands of
lawmakers. Note well that making "charity" a legal obligation via
taxation (at which point it stops being "charity" because it is no
voluntary) has the direct effect of putting government into the
"morality" business - something everyone who values their freedom ought
to oppose vigorously.

Government works best when it does no more than keep us free. Once you
appoint it as an arbiter of morality, then the only argument becomes
just *whose* morality ought to be sanctioned by law - i.e., You get the
infernal mess we have today, an inefficient, wasteful, and ineffective
system of "charity" built on a reprehensible system of thieving wealth
distribution.

Worse still, once the government has our permission to act "morally" in
one area, it quite naturally expands its reach into any other place that
can be imagined. So, if you support social causes at the point of the
government's gun, don't howl when a different "morality" is in power and
jams *their* moral ideology down your throat - you opened Pandora's Box.
So when W and company start trying to draw lines around what constitutes
"marriage", what drugs are OK or not, the use of public funds for "Faith
Based Charity" and all the rest, just remember: The popular political
Left cranked that door wide open with the ascent of FDR's socialist
state and all that followed.


P.S. I am personally both quite devout in my religious beliefs and
a firm believer in the importance and efficacy of private charity.
That said, I am *wholly* opposed to government action on the basis
of some imagined school of morality. I don't want the religious Right,
the secular Left, or the heathen Atheists defining the agenda of
the Free West. I want the cause of Liberty to be our sole
governmental agenda...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Joe Barta wrote:

Even if
someone begins life as one of "us", once any success is achieved, it
becomes obvious how they achieved it... we all know how "they" achieve
success.


Do the names Lay or Skilling ring a bell.

Lobby Dosser wrote:

Joe Barta wrote:

Even if
someone begins life as one of "us", once any success is achieved,
it becomes obvious how they achieved it... we all know how "they"
achieve success.


Do the names Lay or Skilling ring a bell.

I rest my case.

Joe Barta

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:52:05 -0800, mac davis
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 14:38:59 GMT, Joe Barta wrote:

dnoyeB wrote:

In the US is the folks in the middle that work the hardest, and
the ones on top that tend to be lucky.

You may be right. As with many places around the US, I live near a few
industrial parks. I've always noticed the number of Cadillacs and
Lincolns that are parked right near the front door well after business
hours.

Years ago I had a lucky boss like that. Was a millionaire many times
over. Very often he'd be in his office making phone calls, doing
paperwork or whatever long after everyone else went home. Matter of
fact, the guy had a cot in a small room just off his office and had
been known to spend the night there from time to time.

I'm with you... I say he was damn lucky to have worked so hard to
build his business and his fortune.

Joe Barta

When I hear folks complain about the "rich" not being taxed enough, I think of
the folks making $20k a year and paying 25% and of Bill Gates..if he only paid
1%, he's pay more in one year than most folks pay in a lifetime..


In actuality, someone with a *taxable income* of $20k will pay on the
order of less than 12%. The person with a taxable income of $20k will
actually be making quite a bit more because the tax quoted is for income
after the standard deduction and before any tax credits are applied.

bottom line: how many good jobs have you had where the owner was poor?






mac

Please remove splinters before emailing


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Keith Williams wrote:


How about showing the average income for each of your tax categories?

How about effective tax rate by income? (2001 data is the most
recent I could find)


Earning Effective
Percentile Tax Rate
99 - 100% 24.1%
95 - 100% 20.8%
90 - 100% 18.7%
80 - 100% 16.3%
60 - 80% 7.2%
40 - 60% 3.8%
20 - 40% .3%
0 - 20% -5.6%


That's a start, but the figures for 80, 90, and 95 include the higher
brackets. Could you attribute the numbers?

I have to wonder if that's federal income tax only, since by the time
you figure in sales taxes, state taxes, I have trouble believing anyone
has a negative tax rate :-).

And the income figures would still be nice since below a certain income,
no income tax is assessed, thus skewing the figures. For example a
couple with two children and an income of $30,000 probably would pay
little if any FIT.

--
It's turtles, all the way down

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 09:55:42 -0800, Larry Blanchard
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

So, rather than "shoveling money" to the top 1%, the top 1% is
paying 34.27% of all income taxes and the top 50% of all wage earners
are carrying the load for the bottom 50%.

Could that be because they have no money?

But the assertion of the OP was that the "poor" were paying taxes so the
rich didn't have to. The comment, "shoveling money from the poor to the
rich ... " was what instigated this. Thus, you also invalidate the
original comment.



How about showing the average income for each of your tax categories?


Since you asked, from the same IRS tax report (since you cut out the link
and the stats, the exercise of finding the link is left to the reader). By
the way, this is for gross income, so arguments that deductions reduce the
statistics disproportionately don't wash.

Top 1% pays 34.27% of all income taxes and has 16.77% of all income hmm,
doesn't seem to support your implied conclusion, does it?
Top 5% pays 54.36% of all income taxes and has 31.18% of all income. Nope,
they aren't on the disproportionate beneficiary list either, but let's
continue
Top 10% pays 65.84% of all income taxes and has 42.36% of all income, Dang,
your assertion just keeps getting worser and worser (as my grandmother used
to say)
Top 25% pays 83.88% of all income taxes and has 64.86% of all income
Top 50% pays 96.54% of all income taxes and has 86.01% of all income. Well,
at least your cause is helped slightly here as the data indicates that the
largest portion of all income resides in the top half of all wage earners.
However, .. before one becomes overly excited, the wage floor on that top
50% is $29k. The statistics are for *all* income tax returns filed, so
some of that bottom 50% includes returns from children living at home with
their own jobs or investment accounts as well as students attending school
with part time jobs. That $29k amounts to an approximate $14/hour wage.

This also points out that if there is any "shoveling" going on, it's
shoveling dollars from the top end of the scale to lower end, not
vice-versa.

In terms of income floors:
Top 1% $295k
Top 5% $130k
Top 10% $95k
Top 25% $57k
Top 50% $29k

Those numbers hardly represent a king's ransom for any of the upper
levels.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On 3 Feb 2006 13:11:12 -0800, wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

Why bother? The discussion here is refutation of Renata's claim that the
government "shovels money" at the top 1% of wage earners. This claim has
now been thoroughly refuted . In fact, the exact opposite has been
established, it is the wealthy that shovel money at the government in
large quantities. This is indisputable unless one of you can show the
statistics cited by M&J as being false.

Or, of course, if you can show that they are receiving more from
the government than they return in taxes.

Most of that welfare for the wealthy is not paid directly to the
wealthy
themselves, but rather spent in some way from which they directly
benefit.

Case in point, the football stadium built in Baltimore for Art Model.
(who was also paid $2,000,000 in cash) to take the Browns from
Cleveland to Baltimore. That he (presumeably) paid some of it back
in taxes only mitigates it a little.

And of course Art Model is the sole and only beneficiary of that
government (what did you call it) "welfare". Bet he gets awfully lonely,
just puttering around all by himself, meandering about that big stadium
the government gave him. ... and that was federal tax dollars given to
Model? or are we trying to mix federal and local issues here?

How much of the $2M went directly to him vs. to the moving expenses for
the team?

... and no, I don't support the silliness of local governments building
stadiums like that for businesses like the NFL. However, if the local
government can make a business case indicating a net income benefit, there
might be an argument to be made. Your point however, that somehow those
programs benefit solely the person involved is more than a bit absurd.

[Why am I responding to this?]


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Lobby Dosser wrote:

SNIP

Do the names Lay or Skilling ring a bell.

OK, name all the US corporations found guilty (or likely to be guilty)
of serious fraud in the past 5 years. (As opposed to those who've
had no legal problems or the problems were minor/regulatory "traffic
tickets".) Here, I'll start the list for you:

Enron
Tyco
Adelphia
Worldcom

There are probably a few others I'm forgetting at the moment.

Now, list all the companies that have had *no* legal infractions.
I won't even try to start that list because the number is likely in
the 10s of thousands.

Elevating Lay or Skilling as examples of ordinary corporate behavior is
assinine. I have worked with literally dozens of corporate leaders in my
career. Some were better at their jobs than others. Some were better
human beings than others. And, yes, some were more honest than others.
But I never noticed the distribution of ability, character, and honesty
being particularly different than other professions. I've certainly seen
plenty of dishonesty from blue-collar tradesmen, especially unionized
workers, but I don't therefore presume they mostly/all are dishonest.


Your comments, however brief, are yet another example of class envy
which, like all forms of bigotry, I condemn out of hand.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Mark & Juanita wrote:

SNIP


... and no, I don't support the silliness of local governments building
stadiums like that for businesses like the NFL. However, if the local
government can make a business case indicating a net income benefit, there

They don't ... ever. CATO or somebody did a study a few years ago
to see how these sorts of projects fared when comparing the amount the
government paid out (directly or with tax breaks) against how much
actual economic activity was generated by these corporate welfare
queens. As I recall, not a *single* one of them returned even break-even
status to the communities involved, let alone generated positive
revenue for the government. Public funding for private business of this
sort is a scam, period.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Your comments, however brief, are yet another example of class envy
which, like all forms of bigotry, I condemn out of hand.

No, they are not.

On 03 Feb 2006 20:34:48 EST, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

SNIP


... and no, I don't support the silliness of local governments building
stadiums like that for businesses like the NFL. However, if the local
government can make a business case indicating a net income benefit, there

They don't ... ever. CATO or somebody did a study a few years ago
to see how these sorts of projects fared when comparing the amount the
government paid out (directly or with tax breaks) against how much
actual economic activity was generated by these corporate welfare
queens. As I recall, not a *single* one of them returned even break-even
status to the communities involved, let alone generated positive
revenue for the government. Public funding for private business of this
sort is a scam, period.


Kind of suspected as much. When we were in Texas, our town attempted to
get the citizens to pass an additional sales tax to pay for getting the
Dallas Mavericks to move the arena to town. Fortunately, the measure
failed by a large margin. Silliest part of the deal was seeing one of the
geekier councilmen on polling day standing outside the polling place
dribbling a basketball and bouncing it off the library wall.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article , wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:

SNIP


... and no, I don't support the silliness of local governments building
stadiums like that for businesses like the NFL. However, if the local
government can make a business case indicating a net income benefit, there

They don't ... ever. CATO or somebody did a study a few years ago
to see how these sorts of projects fared when comparing the amount the
government paid out (directly or with tax breaks) against how much
actual economic activity was generated by these corporate welfare
queens. As I recall, not a *single* one of them returned even break-even
status to the communities involved, let alone generated positive
revenue for the government. Public funding for private business of this
sort is a scam, period.

The worst part of the scam is that the public often doesn't even get a say in
making the decision. That just happened here in Indianapolis -- the city is
spending half a BILLION dollars to build a new stadium/convention center
complex. At the same time, the mayor is planning to lay off cops and
firefighters because there's not enough money to pay them. No referendum. We
the voters basically have no recourse. All we can do is vote the clown out of
office -- in two years -- and we'll still be stuck with paying for the stadium
anyway.

See my sig...

P.S. Hey, Tim, just curious - how is your last name pronounced?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 3 Feb 2006 13:11:12 -0800, wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

Why bother? The discussion here is refutation of Renata's claim that the
government "shovels money" at the top 1% of wage earners. This claim has
now been thoroughly refuted . In fact, the exact opposite has been
established, it is the wealthy that shovel money at the government in
large quantities. This is indisputable unless one of you can show the
statistics cited by M&J as being false.

Or, of course, if you can show that they are receiving more from
the government than they return in taxes.

Most of that welfare for the wealthy is not paid directly to the
wealthy
themselves, but rather spent in some way from which they directly
benefit.

Case in point, the football stadium built in Baltimore for Art Modell.
(who was also paid $2,000,000 in cash) to take the Browns from
Cleveland to Baltimore. That he (presumeably) paid some of it back
in taxes only mitigates it a little.

And of course Art Model is the sole and only beneficiary of that
government (what did you call it) "welfare".

Well, some hot dog vendors got jobs, but then again the hot dog
vendors over at Memorial lost their jobs.

Bet he gets awfully lonely,
just puttering around all by himself, meandering about that big stadium
the government gave him.

No, he rented it out, and also received all the profits from
consessions
as part of his deal. Despite all that, the Ravens went bankrupt and
the NFL eventually made him sell the team.

... and that was federal tax dollars given to
Model? or are we trying to mix federal and local issues here?

Oh yes, I'm mixing state and local issues in as well. I believe
the comments were directed at 'the government' in general, not
just the Feds.


How much of the $2M went directly to him vs. to the moving expenses for
the team?


All of it.

... and no, I don't support the silliness of local governments building
stadiums like that for businesses like the NFL. However, if the local
government can make a business case indicating a net income benefit, there
might be an argument to be made.

There might be, but AFAIK, no such project has been shown to
have a net economic benefit for the community for several decades.

Your point however, that somehow those
programs benefit solely the person involved is more than a bit absurd.

No, you are the one who wrote that Art Modell was the
sole beniciiciary. To attribute your comments to me
is inaccurate.


[Why am I responding to this?]


Because you don't know anything about Art Modell.

--

FF

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
...

Yes, that is the problem indeed. Had the SSAs been
managed properly instead of looted, we'd all be well
positioned for retirement. IF retirees withderaw more
than they put in it is only becuase of that mismanagement.

The retirees are NOT the thieves. They are not demanding
payment beyond what woudl erasonably be expected to be
on account if their acounts had been managed with even
the minimal degree of fiduciary responsibility the pre-
Reagan era government demanded of private pensions.



Well hang on a second. It is certainly true that people should have
the reasonable expectation of get out what they put in and doing
so is not theft. But virtually every analysis of the situation I've
read - and I grant they could all be wrong and I'd not know the
difference - notes that *most* people will live long enough to take
out more than they put in (without regard to whether the funds are
actually there or not - this is a technicality at this point having
to do with how the government funds it).

Again, I think you wil find that every such analysis ignores both
the employer contribution, and reasonable interest rate.

I'm not clear on whether or not the employer contribution alone
would be enough to tip the balance into the black, but the
reason people will take out more than they put in (plus interest
on what they put in) is not becuase retirees are _thieves_. It is
because the SSAs were managed by thieves. Those are the
same thieves who are doing the analyses to which you refer.

--

FF

wrote:

I'm not clear on whether or not the employer contribution alone
would be enough to tip the balance into the black, but the
reason people will take out more than they put in (plus interest
on what they put in) is not becuase retirees are _thieves_. It is
because the SSAs were managed by thieves. Those are the
same thieves who are doing the analyses to which you refer.

When you say the SSA was managed by "thieves", do you mean that
individuals working for the government illegally removed money... like
say a Burger King cashier might pilfer $20 from the cash drawer? And
if these folks would not have done such a thing, there would not be a
long term entitlement funding problem?

Joe Barta

Doug Miller wrote:
SNIP
..

P.S. Hey, Tim, just curious - how is your last name pronounced?


Dan-eh-luck
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/