Praise God for the Tea Partiers and Baptists.

GaReb770 · Mar 31, 2011

The Georgia GOP was on the verge of raising taxes tremendously on the middle class under the guise of lowering the State Income tax from 6 to 4.5 % but taking away charitable and mortgage interest deductions from middle income Georgians.
 
The Democrats have been fighting this bill furiously and until this evening it looked like the GOP was going to steam roll right over us. But the Baptists and Tea Partiers have come to the rescue at least temporarily and the GOP may actually have to negotiate. For all the bruhaha that the GOP stands for no tax increases, that is not true in Georgia.
 
<a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/tax-bill-stalls-amid-891467.html" target="_blank">http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/tax-bill-stalls-amid-891467.html</a>

satfix · Apr 5, 2011

I've always wondered - who exactly is the Middle Class? Is there an income point where one is considered middle class or working class - and is working class in a lower income bracket than the middle class - by working class, does that mean the middle class or the low income class NOT work?
 
Am I rich? How much do I need to make before I'm one of the 'rich' who doesn't pay their 'Fair Share'? And exactly how much IS my fair share? Should I get a proportionate amount of government services because I pay more in taxes? is there a "Fair Share" line at the DMV or Federal Courthouse or with the IRS where I get my 'fair share' of services for the amount I pay?
 
Or - do those who pay more than their fair share get faster police/fire/ambulance response?
 
 
Just curious ....

gretriever · Apr 5, 2011

Wasn't there some recent poll of millionaires that said if they didn't have $5 million, they didn't consider themselves rich?

GaReb770 · Apr 5, 2011

For the purposes of the Georgia Legislature, middle class is anyone with an income between $47,000 to $180,000.00. We still don't know the final resolution of the tax changes as the Georgia legislature has a few more days to go. They have contemplated raising the middle income definition to $60,000 for singles with our deductions phasing out between there and 68,000. Supposedly they will raise something on the upper income scale too so those of us in the middle aren't bearing the brunt of the tax changes and having to pay several hundred or more dollars in state taxes next year.
 
The reason the Baptist Church got involved was because if the legislature cuts out charitable contributions for Georgia residents they are concerned about their tithes. Obviously if the tax rate increases on Georgia residents the less money that will go into the collection plates.
 
The Tea Party is somewhat more concerned about the effect on middle class Georgia taxpayers but I suspect that is because most of them fall as I do, in the middle class according to the definition of the Georgia Legislature. 
 
Normally the Democratic Party, Tea Party and Baptists are on different pages. Politics indeed can make some strange bedfellows from time to time.

satfix · Apr 5, 2011

I wonder if you ask someone making 47K if their neighbor making 180K is 'similar'? And likewise, the guy making 181K - do you think he feels 'rich'? Gotta love churches who look out for their interests. I point this out to show the ludicrousness of the 'class' system - and the 'scalar' approach to taxes. By the function of 1 penny - a person can find themselves in a new bracket - and that one penny then causes their entire tax bill to go up! This was an issue in Iowa when I had my business - if you made over 60K, you got a 10% tax increase! So, I never paid myself more than 60K and simply raised the rent to myself to get the money out without tax consequence (or at least without the additional tax penalty. If it wasn't scalar, I would have simply paid more as a %. The self interests of many make the tax system we have so screwed up - and as a result, I believe creates the divisiveness that comes from that Caste system.

GaReb770 · Apr 5, 2011

As I remember my civics classes in high school (shortly before Sherman visited Atlanta), we have always had a "progressive" tax system - i.e. the more money one makes the more they will pay in taxes as well as more they will keep. The 10% tax jump would indeed be a bit steep. I think the argument in Georgia is not whether the one making $47,000 feels similar to the one making $180,000 (that's simply the Georgia Legislature determining who is middle class) but whether the middle and upper income groups are paying our fair share of taxes. 
 
I'm not opposed to having to pay higher taxes (and I'm only talking about Georgia taxes here) provided the middle class isn't paying the brunt of it while the wealthier get more tax breaks for their "investments" at our expense. 
 
Already we have seen the Georgia Legislature making the Hope Scholarship based on the lottery more expensive for the middle and lower income classes. When the Hope Scholarship first came into being it was based on income as well as maintaining a certain grade point average. In 1995 (or '96, I forget which) the income requirement was removed and ALL Georgia high school graduates became eligible for the scholarship. And that was fine. The lottery was doing very well and educational costs were under control. Now the Hope Scholarship is having some financial difficulty so did the Legislature and Governor reinstate the income guidelines which would have protected students coming from lower and middle class families, which would have resolved the crisis? No, they effectively made the Hope Scholarship more difficult and expensive for those groups while assisting the higher income families whose children would have gone to college even without the scholarship to benefit them. Thus the inequities of the current Georgia Legislature and the discussion over middle vs higher income class structure.

satfix · Apr 5, 2011

Are you defining "Fair Share" as real dollars or % of income? 10% of 1 Million is, $100,000 - 28% of 100,000 is 28,000. It seems to me the rich ARE paying their fair share. Even at 5%, a person making 1 Million is paying twice the amount of the typical 28% tax bracket.
 
And I contend, the guy making a Million pays even more when you take into account the sales tax he/she pays on their purchases -from property taxes to school taxes. Sales Tax on larger ticket items etc....
 
Why is that not fair?
 
"Fair Share" - is the phrase with which I have a problem. It seems they do pay their 'Fair Share' - but we make them out to be demons and accusing them of 'holding out'?
 
 
I wish I could PAY 100,000 in taxes - that would say I am making a pretty penny to do so.
 
 
<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by GaReb770 <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992647"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a> As I remember my civics classes in high school (shortly before Sherman visited Atlanta), we have always had a "progressive" tax system - i.e. the more money one makes the more they will pay in taxes as well as more they will keep. The 10% tax jump would indeed be a bit steep. I think the argument in Georgia is not whether the one making $47,000 feels similar to the one making $180,000 (that's simply the Georgia Legislature determining who is middle class) but whether the middle and upper income groups are paying our fair share of taxes. 
 
I'm not opposed to having to pay higher taxes (and I'm only talking about Georgia taxes here) provided the middle class isn't paying the brunt of it while the wealthier get more tax breaks for their "investments" at our expense. 
 
Already we have seen the Georgia Legislature making the Hope Scholarship based on the lottery more expensive for the middle and lower income classes. When the Hope Scholarship first came into being it was based on income as well as maintaining a certain grade point average. In 1995 (or '96, I forget which) the income requirement was removed and ALL Georgia high school graduates became eligible for the scholarship. And that was fine. The lottery was doing very well and educational costs were under control. Now the Hope Scholarship is having some financial difficulty so did the Legislature and Governor reinstate the income guidelines which would have protected students coming from lower and middle class families, which would have resolved the crisis? No, they effectively made the Hope Scholarship more difficult and expensive for those groups while assisting the higher income families whose children would have gone to college even without the scholarship to benefit them. Thus the inequities of the current Georgia Legislature and the discussion over middle vs higher income class structure.
 
</div>
</div>

gretriever · Apr 5, 2011

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by satfix <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992654"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-right:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-bottom:0px solid;"></a> 
And I contend, the guy making a Million pays even more when you take into account the sales tax he/she pays on their purchases -from property taxes to school taxes. Sales Tax on larger ticket items etc....
 
 
 
 
 
</div>
</div>
This may be true talking what he literally pays. I think the contention is that after he's paid them, he's still got a lot more to fall back on than those making less. Even if everyone paid, say 10% - no exceptions for any class, that's still the case (and the problem). The less well-to-do get hit harder that way.

duckgeek · Apr 5, 2011

Rich,
 
I'm not sure if this is accurate. The federal tax tables, as I understand them, tax the dollars in a progressive manner so that your taxes are computed such that if there is a step increase at 60K and you made 80K, your first 60k is taxed at the lower rate and the next 20K is taxed at the higher rate. Otherwise there would be huge "ledges" in the tax tables.
 
Not sure about Iowa or why they would do it differently but a quick check seems to show that also do it that way. According to this: <a href="http://www.iowa.gov/tax/forms/0778914.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.iowa.gov/tax/forms/0778914.pdf</a> 
 
in 2008 if you made 64000 you'd pay $4096 in taxes and if you made 62000 (just below the 62055 threshold) you'd pay 3916.98. 
 
 
 
<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by satfix <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992629"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a> 
I wonder if you ask someone making 47K if their neighbor making 180K is 'similar'? And likewise, the guy making 181K - do you think he feels 'rich'? Gotta love churches who look out for their interests. I point this out to show the ludicrousness of the 'class' system - and the 'scalar' approach to taxes. By the function of 1 penny - a person can find themselves in a new bracket - and that one penny then causes their entire tax bill to go up! This was an issue in Iowa when I had my business - if you made over 60K, you got a 10% tax increase! So, I never paid myself more than 60K and simply raised the rent to myself to get the money out without tax consequence (or at least without the additional tax penalty. If it wasn't scalar, I would have simply paid more as a %. The self interests of many make the tax system we have so screwed up - and as a result, I believe creates the divisiveness that comes from that Caste system.</div>
</div>

satfix · Apr 5, 2011

It's assumed those making higher incomes also invested more - in college, or a skill set that warrants the higher pay. So we want to penalize them for being successful? Where does my making 1 Million dollars keep you from making more? It's not a finite pie that says if I make more - you make less.
 
If I have more to fall back on (to use your words), then I most likely spend more which in turn drives the economy which benefits everyone, right?
 
Take 1 dollar from me and that's all you get - let me spend a dollar and in theory that drives income for workers or businesses which creates more than the 1 dollar you took from me to penalize me for being successful.
 
 

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by gretriever <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992660"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a> 
This may be true talking what he literally pays. I think the contention is that after he's paid them, he's still got a lot more to fall back on than those making less. Even if everyone paid, say 10% - no exceptions for any class, that's still the case (and the problem). The less well-to-do get hit harder that way. 

 
</div>
</div>

GaReb770 · Apr 5, 2011

I don't think we are penalizing the wealthier in the least. They would not be making their wealth if they were not able to find workers such as the middle and lower class to work for them or the things they are investing in. Many of these workers are just as happy working for someone else (me, for one <img alt="biggrin.gif" id="user_yui_3_3_0_8_130202606351935" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/biggrin.gif" style="width:16px;height:16px;">) as some business owners are at owning the business (the people I work for). And I certainly want them to make lots of money, in part to keep me amongst others gainfully employed so we can pay our share of taxes. At the same time I think there should be some equitable sharing when it comes to paying for various government taxes. After all without the lower and middle class there would be no wealthy class. So it helps to share and work with each other so that each group benefits, not just one at the expense of the others.

purple hayes · Apr 5, 2011

<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992615" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by satfix <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992615"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a> 
Am I rich?</div>
</div>
 
Last time I check, yes. 
-John

satfix · Apr 6, 2011

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by GaReb770 <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992669"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a> I don't think we are penalizing the wealthier in the least. They would not be making their wealth if they were not able to find workers such as the middle and lower class to work for them or the things they are investing in. Many of these workers are just as happy working for someone else (me, for one <img alt="biggrin.gif" id="user_yui_3_3_0_8_130202606351935" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/biggrin.gif" style="width:16px;height:16px;">) as some business owners are at owning the business (the people I work for). And I certainly want them to make lots of money, in part to keep me amongst others gainfully employed so we can pay our share of taxes. At the same time I think there should be some equitable sharing when it comes to paying for various government taxes. After all without the lower and middle class there would be no wealthy class. So it helps to share and work with each other so that each group benefits, not just one at the expense of the others.
</div>
</div>
 
But, you are penalizing them - the graduated tax does penalize them. And even if you don't call it a 'penalty', Liberals 'demean' them with the 'Pay your Fair Share' comment - the rich pay MORE than their fair share! And most understand that in order for the system to work for those who can't (or won't) make it on their own, they have to pay more. It just pisses me off that the comment, "The Rich don't pay their fair share", when in fact, they (most) pay MORE than anyone else and are the primary tax payers though the smallest portion of the wealth in this company.
 
And that's bullshit - when you say that without the lower and middle class there would be no 'wealthy class' - the entire 'class' system (as you define it) causes division and 'us verses them' mentality - that does nothing but creates this 'you owe me' mindset. I personally work my ass off and have taken a great many risks as well as sacrificed a lot to get where I am at. I am in no way 'rich' (though, by name - I am.. :0) ), for those who chose to take less of a risk or to not sacrifice to the extent I have (for me, moving every couple of years to get a better paying job and to move up - where others chose to NOT make that same choice and make much less) - I am then made to feel like a 'bad guy' or less than 'fair' when I try to manage my own tax liability?
 
I would consider myself 'middle class' but at my point in life, I do ok - I don't live pay check to pay check. If I want something, I can normally buy it - and I've worked hard to reduce my debt load (only a mortgage) and live comfortable within my means. Why should I have to give MORE of it to the government because others chose to not take the risk or do the hard work to get here? 
I will pay my taxes and will do whatever i can for those in need - just don't tell me or those who make significantly more than I do that they don't pay their fair share. That's my beef with this.

OldBaldHippie · Apr 6, 2011

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by satfix <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992745"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-bottom:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-right:0px solid;"></a> 
But, you are penalizing them - the graduated tax does penalize them. And even if you don't call it a 'penalty', Liberals 'demean' them with the 'Pay your Fair Share' comment - the rich pay MORE than their fair share! And most understand that in order for the system to work for those who can't (or won't) make it on their own, they have to pay more. It just pisses me off that the comment, "The Rich don't pay their fair share", when in fact, they (most) pay MORE than anyone else and are the primary tax payers though the smallest portion of the wealth in this company.
 
And that's bullshit - when you say that without the lower and middle class there would be no 'wealthy class' - the entire 'class' system (as you define it) causes division and 'us verses them' mentality - that does nothing but creates this 'you owe me' mindset. I personally work my ass off and have taken a great many risks as well as sacrificed a lot to get where I am at. I am in no way 'rich' (though, by name - I am.. :0) ), for those who chose to take less of a risk or to not sacrifice to the extent I have (for me, moving every couple of years to get a better paying job and to move up - where others chose to NOT make that same choice and make much less) - I am then made to feel like a 'bad guy' or less than 'fair' when I try to manage my own tax liability?
 
I would consider myself 'middle class' but at my point in life, I do ok - I don't live pay check to pay check. If I want something, I can normally buy it - and I've worked hard to reduce my debt load (only a mortgage) and live comfortable within my means. Why should I have to give MORE of it to the government because others chose to not take the risk or do the hard work to get here? 
I will pay my taxes and will do whatever i can for those in need - just don't tell me or those who make significantly more than I do that they don't pay their fair share. That's my beef with this.
</div>
</div>
... 
Rich...you sound like a comfortable slightly "upper middle class"...I don't think we are talking about you...we are generally talking about the upper 1 or 2%...they have so many smart tax lawyers and loopholes that they generally are viewed by the public as getting away with paying less...heck, didn't even Warren Buffett point out something to that affect....

satfix · Apr 6, 2011

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by OldBaldHippie <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992747"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a> ... 
Rich...you sound like a comfortable slightly "upper middle class"...I don't think we are talking about you...we are generally talking about the upper 1 or 2%...they have so many smart tax lawyers and loopholes that they generally are viewed by the public as getting away with paying less...heck, didn't even Warren Buffett point out something to that affect....
 
</div>
</div>
 OBH: even the upper 1 or 2% pay much more in real tax dollars than any one else - even if, as a % of their total income is less. And, like I said earlier - the money they spend in the economy pays a multiple of the amount the government would get if they just took the money from them instead of letting it go into their 'lifestyles of the rich and famous'. I have zero problem with anyone making as much money as they can - and you know, if they have some 'deductions' that make it so they pay less - so be it. If you want to be fair, then remove ALL deductions from everyone! That way everyone pays an 'xx' % and you won't have any deductions period. But that won't happen because the same people who demonize the rich for their ability to generate income would have to pay 'their fair share'.
 
There's something to be said for a flat tax with no deductions.
 
Line One: How much did you earn________________________
Line two: Multiply line one by .15________________________
Line three: How much did you pay in taxes for the tax year?____________
Line four : Subtract line 3 from line 2_________________
If Line 2 is Greater than 0, then make check payable to: IRS
If Line 2 is Less than 0, then refund is___________________________
 
 
Problem solved and the Tax accountants of the world can get a job doing something else - and the liberal politicians can quit demonizing the rich and the Conservative Rich can quit looking for loop holes.
 
Life is wonderful

gatorbob · Apr 6, 2011

I did a really quick Google search, and <a href="http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html" target="_blank">I found this</a> from a self-proclaimed non-partisan group. 2008 is the most recent year that it has data for.
 
<h2 style="text-align:center;">Tax Year 2008</h2>
<h2 style="text-align:center;"> </h2>
 
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Top 1%
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
$380,354
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
38.02
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Top 5%
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
$159,619
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
58.72
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Top 10%
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
$113,799
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
69.94
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Top 25%
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
$67,280
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
86.34
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Top 50%
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
$33,048
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
97.30
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Bottom 50%
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
<$33,048
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
2.7
</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="width:443px;" valign="top">
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income 
Source: Internal Revenue Service
</td>
</tr></tbody></table>

GaReb770 · Apr 6, 2011

I still don't have a problem with the graduated income tax system. The more money I make, good for me. But that also means I have more responsibility to pay my fair share whether that be as a middle income or higher individual. Shifting tax burdens to the lower income groups and/or putting the burdens on the middle class while allowing the wealthier class to continue to benefit more from tax cuts is not equitable IMHO. What I always respected about the Kennedy's and Warren Buffington's is their willingness to extend tax burdens to their own socio-economic groups and not just the middle class. 
 
Ryan Paul is looking to cut medicare/medicaid to balance the budget. There are ways that budget may be able to be cut, but it shouldn't be done on the backs of the elderly and disabled who struggle to make ends meet while others enjoy Ruth Chris' Steak house every night for dinner if they so desire. Sort of like the Leona Helmsley attitude of "only the poor people pay taxes".

gatorbob · Apr 6, 2011

Sure, the wealthy can afford to pay more, so they should pay more. My chart shows that they clearly do pay more. The top 1% pays 38%. Is that enough? I don't know. If you click my link, you'll see that their percentage has changed from year to year. Over the 10 years they chart, the most that the top 1% paid was 40.42% in 2007, and the least was 33.71% in 1999. Is 33.7% enough? Is 40.4% too much? I have no idea. Different people have different opinions, and there's no definitive formula that provides an answer. If there was, the tax code would be written to utilize that formula. 
 
So if you think "the rich" should "pay more", how much should they pay? 45%? 50%? 80%?? How little should "the poor" pay? Right now, the bottom 50% only pays 2.7%, so they can't go down much, can they? 
 
I honestly don't know the answers, so I'm not trying to lead the witness, so to speak. I guess my question to you guys (both GaReb and Satfix, since you guys have different opinions on this), is how do you think this chart should be rearranged? In other words, what percentage should the top 1% pay, and what percentage should the bottom 50% pay, etc? What's your ideal breakdown?

yar · Apr 6, 2011

Comparing to GB's tax statistics, I just found this data <a href="http://sociology.ucsc.edu.whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html" target="_blank">http://sociology.ucsc.edu.whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html</a> saying that, excluding the very illiquid (and these days, highly doubtful) equity in home ownership, the top1% owns 42.7% of financial wealth and the top 20% owns 93%. (leaving 7% for the bottom 4/5 of America). Yeah, we tax income, not wealth, but this gives a pretty good picture of what the pie distribution looks like and who really has a stake in America and should be paying the freight.
 
yar 

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by GatorBob <a href="/forum/thread/73242/praise-god-for-the-tea-partiers-and-baptists#post_1992771"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border-right:0px solid;border-top:0px solid;border-left:0px solid;border-bottom:0px solid;"></a> I did a really quick Google search, and <a href="http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html" target="_blank">I found this</a> from a self-proclaimed non-partisan group. 2008 is the most recent year that it has data for.
 
<h2 style="text-align:center;">Tax Year 2008</h2>
<h2 style="text-align:center;"> </h2>
 
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Top 1%
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
$380,354
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
38.02
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Top 5%
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
$159,619
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
58.72
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Top 10%
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
$113,799
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
69.94
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Top 25%
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
$67,280
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
86.34
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Top 50%
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
$33,048
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
97.30
</td>
</tr><tr><td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
Bottom 50%
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
<$33,048
</td>
<td style="width:148px;" valign="top">
2.7
</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="width:443px;" valign="top">
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income 
Source: Internal Revenue Service
</td>
</tr></tbody></table> 
 
</div>
</div>

satfix · Apr 6, 2011

Yar - the rich are paying the 'freight' to use your words - and yet we still demonize them by feeding in to the political 'Fair Share' crap. They are paying their 'fair share' - perhaps, instead of making them or demanding them to pay more (which, they'll figure out how to get around it by spending less - or, in the case of a business owner, they may cut their investment in that and cost jobs which then has even a greater impact - because guys like GaReb who depend on those 'rich follk' to keep him employed may be one of the victims and then will require even more federal 'help' (which then you make the rich pay more and the circle continues!)
 
Again, I contend, the 'rich' don't hoard their money so when you take their dollars in increased taxes, they simply spend less - which cost even more than you potentially may get from the 1 dollar tax.
 
As to the 97% verses 3% - The total wealth and the ability to create wealth isn't a 100% pie! My ability to make more money doesn't diminish your opportunity to make more - its not 'limited' - where opportunity must be divvied up amonst the masses like gold hidden under the tree. Opportunity affords everyone the same shot - but not everyone either accepts the opportunity (called, "Risk") or in some cases - they don't have the capacity (either financially, or intellectually) to respond to the opportunity. But it IS there for everyone.

Praise God for the Tea Partiers and Baptists.

Top Contributors this Month