"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
news:a82hi39gbjjdtkunfb5d3fdqh40qbe18ff{at}4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:04:36 -0600, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
>  wrote:
>
> >"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
> >news:p1c9i3dmqsg4hi5jmikvae4tk23js2q1at{at}4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:44:14 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Josh Hill"  wrote in message
> >> >news:r330i39lgcpsvpfh8ilitpgp8ldl0o9kt6{at}4ax.com...
> >>
> >> >> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. But,
really, with a per
> >> >> capita income of something like $40,000 per year, we
have more than
> >> >> enough money to pay everyone a decent wage without imposing on
anyone
> >> >> (that comes to $160,000 for a family of four!).
> >> >
> >> >So how much of your current income are you willing to give up?
> >>
> >> Nothing will come of nothing, as Lear would say.
> >>
> >> Seriously, whatever is necessary to lift those willing to work to the
> >> best of their ability out of poverty, assuming of course that that
> >> applies to everyone. It isn't terribly much. In fact, for those with
> >> middle class incomes, it isn't really anything; for many years now,
> >> since power shifted to the conservatives, most of our economic gains
> >> have been going to the rich rather than the poor and middle class:
> >>
> >>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2
003.svg
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, the Republicans have been preferentially reducing the taxes
> >> of the rich. I'd take some of that back.
> >
> >Because when you cut income taxes, those with the most income will
benefit
> >the most.
> >When you cut captial gains, those who have capital gains will benefit.
>
> Well, yeah, they cut those taxes, and the estate tax, because they
> wanted to cut taxes for the rich. Even then, they could have targeted
> the cuts towards the middle class, had they wanted to.

Or, just perhaps....by cutting captial gains taxes they'll
stimulate.....economic activity.
:-)

And I've not really been fond of the estate tax.

>
> >> To put it in perspective, the top 1% of American taxpayers earn 21.2%
> >> of American income. They paid 39.4% of income taxes, or a bit less
> >> than twice the average rate, but they paid much lower effective rates
> >> on other taxes such as FICA, real estate, and sales, so their overall
> >> tax burden as a percentage of gross income may well be *lower* than
> >> that of the middle class.
> >
> >So the top 1% pay 39.4 % of iuncome taxes, yet that's not enough.
>
> No, it isn't. For one thing, other taxes are regressive -- they hit
> regular people a lot harder than they hit the rich -- and the mildly
> progressive income tax helps to correct for that. But, mostly, the top
> 1% of taxpayers earn *21.2%* of American income. It stands to reason
> that a family that earns a hundred times what others earn in a year
> has a bit more to spare when tax time rolls around.

So how mcuh more should they pay? Clearly paying  39% isn't enough -
How much more?

Dennis


.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32