Income Distribution - Page 2 - AZBZ Forums
           
Arizona Bass Zone

   
December 7th, 2019     07:11 AM   

Home Forums List of Advertisers Tourny Schedule
Go Back   AZBZ Forums > General Forums > Other Topics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 12th, 2011, 12:38 PM   #16
jbv
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkole View Post


A little butt hurt, so you have to make shit up...

Who the phuck cares, how I define the rich and what I think they should pay. This thread or my comments had nothing to do with the definition of rich, it clearly is about the top certain percentage and you were just jacking around a corner.

Damn you are a fool... where did I say the rich are evil?

Repeat... on the your a damned fool... where did I say only the rich should pay taxes.

Sometimes you are just a phucking idiot, just because I wasn't playing fair.

Keep pulling shit out...
Read what you wrote...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkole View Post
The income tax was set up as a tax for rich people only, why not go back to the way it was originally set up?
jbv is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old November 12th, 2011, 12:45 PM   #17
jkole
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,454
Images: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbv View Post
Read what you wrote...

I am going back to working with the mentally handicapped for some intellectual stimulation...

The income tax was set up as a tax for rich people only (a statement of fact, something that you obviously have issues with), why not go back to the way it was originally set up? (A question, not a suggestion, notice the punctuation)

I have posted some other graphs and fact based information showing what has happened to the middle class and the richest over the last several years.

AND... now somehow I claim the rich are evil... you are a phucking idiot
jkole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2011, 12:53 PM   #18
jbv
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkole View Post
I am going back to working with the mentally handicapped for some intellectual stimulation...

The income tax was set up as a tax for rich people only (a statement of fact, something that you obviously have issues with), why not go back to the way it was originally set up? (A question, not a suggestion, notice the punctuation)

I have posted some other graphs and fact based information showing what has happened to the middle class and the richest over the last several years.

AND... now somehow I claim the rich are evil... you are a phucking idiot
Typical liberal, resorting to insults...
jbv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2011, 12:57 PM   #19
jkole
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,454
Images: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbv View Post
Typical liberal, resorting to insults...

I changed my mind you are a foolish pussy...

I knew you would go there... "Typical response from you".

I guess, that was not intended as an insult...

You are now pissed and moaning, because the poo I flung was much better (when you started it)...

Happy eating
jkole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2011, 01:32 PM   #20
jkole
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,454
Images: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbv View Post
Define rich, and define what they should pay...

A 128k family income sounds rich to me. If they are spending as much or more then they are bringing in, they probably don't feel very rich.

In context of Obama and the whole class warfare claim (99%er's and the GOP) , I think rich has already been defined as far as who was going to be targeted for a tax increase. The number I have heard is higher then what Franklin is blogging about.

When in Mexico... I feel rich.

That is why I originally asked...
What folks are talking about raising taxes on the the top 10%?
jkole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2011, 01:50 PM   #21
IHV2FSH
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chandler
Posts: 540
Images: 2
What wouldn't be confusing is everybody pays the same %. There would be no confusion. The rich would still pay the most but everyone would contribute something. take all the write offs away make it the same top to bottom.
IHV2FSH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2011, 01:51 PM   #22
jbv
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,517
So is 128k family income rich in New York or parts of California? Most likely not. And, other than Obama and his "fair share" talk, I've only heard of Reid and his 5% proposed tax on millionaires, which most realize is all talk and really wouldn't generate significant income.

What is not being discussed, is if congress doesn't do anything, a huge number of tax changes will happen by default, which from what I have read is going to hit the middle class really hard.

So what do you think the rich should pay? The top 10% already pay ~70% of all the federal income tax (that number may not be exactly right, haven't looked it up in a while).
jbv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2011, 03:24 PM   #23
jkole
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,454
Images: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbv View Post
So is 128k family income rich in New York or parts of California? Most likely not. And, other than Obama and his "fair share" talk, I've only heard of Reid and his 5% proposed tax on millionaires, which most realize is all talk and really wouldn't generate significant income.

That is why I ignored your first request... semantics with something as gray as "rich".

What is not being discussed, is if congress doesn't do anything, a huge number of tax changes will happen by default, which from what I have read is going to hit the middle class really hard. Source?

So what do you think the rich should pay? The top 10% already pay ~70% of all the federal income tax (that number may not be exactly right, haven't looked it up in a while).
Since you seem to be avoiding the recent report... I actually thought you were just screwing around. sorry about the insult...




From the pages of the most liberal rag...

"Indeed, most of Obama’s tax proposals will apparently repeat those he has made before. For example, $800 billion would come from letting the Bush tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 expire at the end of 2012, meaning the top rate on ordinary income such as salary would rise from 35% to 39.6%. Last month, in a New York Times op-ed, Buffett called for two higher tax rates—one on income over $1 million and the other on income over $10 million. Published reports over the weekend variously suggested Obama would endorse a new millionaire’s rate or release some sort of proposal for a minimum tax on millionaires—say to replace the current convoluted alternative minimum tax. But Sunday night, the Administration official said the Buffett rule was simply a principle for tax reform."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnov...ostly-on-rich/


So it seems the current admin is still talking about the 250k mark, for how many years now???

In certain locales, on certain dates 250k might not be rich either.
jkole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2011, 03:27 PM   #24
jkole
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,454
Images: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by IHV2FSH View Post
What wouldn't be confusing is everybody pays the same %. There would be no confusion. The rich would still pay the most but everyone would contribute something. take all the write offs away make it the same top to bottom.

Sounds good... if they can make it homo (lawyer) proof.
jkole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2011, 03:54 PM   #25
DYOLLP
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 393
You guys do know about the tax brackets don't you? A family (married filing joint) with 128K of taxable income is still only in the 25% bracket. If a family has taxable income of 128K, their gross income is likely quite a bit higher when you consider deductions etc. With the bracket system, the family's effective rate is lower than that 25%.

Flat tax is a bad idea. We'd end up just creating a new tax code. Cain's idea of a flat tax AND a fed sales tax is the worst idea yet.
DYOLLP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2011, 04:27 PM   #26
Franklin J
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Apache Junction
Posts: 13,746
Images: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by DYOLLP View Post
You guys do know about the tax brackets don't you? A family (married filing joint) with 128K of taxable income is still only in the 25% bracket. If a family has taxable income of 128K, their gross income is likely quite a bit higher when you consider deductions etc. With the bracket system, the family's effective rate is lower than that 25%.

Flat tax is a bad idea. We'd end up just creating a new tax code. Cain's idea of a flat tax AND a fed sales tax is the worst idea yet.
I disagree



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
Franklin J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2011, 04:49 PM   #27
DYOLLP
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 393
Do you support Cain's plan? His 999 - or 909 for the poor - directly targets the middle class. With his proposed sales tax, the middle class will pay a higher percentage of tax than any other group. Rich people will pay less tax; poor people will still pay little to no tax; and the middle class will pay more tax. The reason the middle class will pay a higher percentage is that they spend everything they make. That means they'd pay the flat income tax on all their income and then they'd spend all the excess on living expenses, thus paying the sales tax on all their income. Rich people don't need to spend all their income to survive - they will pay the sales tax on a lower percentage of their income. It will also hit those with currently tax exempt income hard. Instead of not paying income tax on Roth IRA distributions or other tax exempt income, people will definitely have to pay the new sales tax on money they spend, and they may have to pay the flat tax. Income that shouldn't have been taxed, will now be taxed with Cain's plan. So if you've already paid your tax on your Roth IRA contributions expecting tax free distributions, you'll now have to pay an additional 9% sales tax on money that's already been taxed.

Cain's plan is a bad idea.
DYOLLP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2011, 04:56 PM   #28
Franklin J
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Apache Junction
Posts: 13,746
Images: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by DYOLLP View Post
Do you support Cain's plan? His 999 - or 909 for the poor - directly targets the middle class. With his proposed sales tax, the middle class will pay a higher percentage of tax than any other group. Rich people will pay less tax; poor people will still pay little to no tax; and the middle class will pay more tax. The reason the middle class will pay a higher percentage is that they spend everything they make. That means they'd pay the flat income tax on all their income and then they'd spend all the excess on living expenses, thus paying the sales tax on all their income. Rich people don't need to spend all their income to survive - they will pay the sales tax on a lower percentage of their income. It will also hit those with currently tax exempt income hard. Instead of not paying income tax on Roth IRA distributions or other tax exempt income, people will definitely have to pay the new sales tax on money they spend, and they may have to pay the flat tax. Income that shouldn't have been taxed, will now be taxed with Cain's plan. So if you've already paid your tax on your Roth IRA contributions expecting tax free distributions, you'll now have to pay an additional 9% sales tax on money that's already been taxed.

Cain's plan is a bad idea.
I dont care about the poor, I dont care about the tax exempt. They get enough handouts as it is. I say to those people find a way to make more money...



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
Franklin J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2011, 05:15 PM   #29
HitACraw
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Where opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work...
Posts: 2,771
Images: 6
One man's rich is another man's poor...

I still fail to see the shortcomings of a flat tax for ALL US citizens, "poor" or "rich". Yeah it will take some time to get used to but so what?? The brackets are a joke, they push people to strategically move their career goals to avoid the step functions, some people even get a legal divorce but remain married by vows to cheat the system.

It just seems if the government's tax income was linear over wage it would be a step towards equality. Or maybe that would just bankrupt the government??

On the subject of $140k/family being rich... I pulled the 2009 census family income data, looks like the $50k-$75k class is reducing in size (by ~5%), but the $100k-$149k class is increasing since 1963 (up ~10%). >$150k has been increasing but only by ~4% since 1963. I think a lot of these trends are related to 2 main factors, inflation and baby boomers moving up in their careers. We have been stagnant for median wage increases since ~1999, which is a strain considering inflation alone.

To be honest it looks like a pretty well balanced distribution of wealth if you ask me. I think humans just tend to pick on people who have more than they do for some reason, without thinking about/considering that they have earned their spot in the income distribution. I'm not downplaying the current economic status of the USA, we're still in the gutter especially with respect to exports/manufacturing/jobs/national debt.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	2009 Census data.jpg
Views:	39
Size:	113.5 KB
ID:	23877  
HitACraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2011, 05:19 PM   #30
HitACraw
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Where opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work...
Posts: 2,771
Images: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by sipperphx View Post
No, whether they hide their money or not, 90% of the earning population is still below $118K..
WRONG, 90% of the population is actually earning <$150k/yr.
HitACraw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Images, Logos, Trademarks are property of thier respective owners, All other content Copyright © 2003 AZBassZone.com , All Rights Reserved.