On 1/25/10 19:48 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:08:23 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/25/10 14:56 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:14:13 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

And don't feed me the limpBALLS classic line about that the rich do pay
taxes.... most don't pay anymore then, and more then less then we do.
Proven fact

TOo true

The "they pay most of the taxes" is a false claim, misdirection, and
totally stupid way of trying to deflect the core principles



According to the IRS:


86% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 25% of income
earners.

97% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 50% of income
earners.

50% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 1% of income
earners.



From the Wall Street Journal:

"Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept
climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The
share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other
words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw
their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of
income.


THe taxes they pay are miniscule related to the amount they make.


So what?



Since they own 80% of all the wealth--I'd say they're getting off
cheap.

Thankfully, what you say isn't incumbent on the rest of us.

Screwing Our Veterans Is Boundless.
http://cryptome.org/0001/screwing-vets.htm
cuhulin

On Jan 25, 9:12*pm, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:
On 1/25/10 19:48 , wrote:





On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:08:23 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
*wrote:

On 1/25/10 14:56 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:14:13 +0000 (UTC), * wrote:

And don't feed me the limpBALLS classic line about that the rich do pay
taxes.... * most don't pay anymore then, and more then less then we do.
Proven fact

TOo true

The "they pay most of the taxes" is a false claim, misdirection, and
totally stupid way of trying to deflect the core principles

* *According to the IRS:

* *86% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 25% of income
earners.

* *97% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 50% of income
earners.

* *50% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 1% of income
earners.

* *From the Wall Street Journal:

* *"Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept
climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The
share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other
words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw
their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of
income.

THe taxes they pay are miniscule related to the amount they make.

* *So what?



Since they own 80% of all the wealth--I'd say they're getting off
cheap.

* *Thankfully, what you say isn't incumbent on the rest of us.

It already is, and has been for the last 29 years. One significant
measure of wealth, particularly for the average American, is personal
savings. Since Reagan took over and pushed through Reaganomics,
personal savings have steadily declined over the last 3 decades.
Looking at personal savings of the wealthy is pointless since they
have a variety of financial back-up plans always in action, from
varied investments to numerous personal assets to obscene salaries and
bonuses, all beyond that which is attainable by the average American,
so measuring their wealth is better measured in dollar income
thresholds.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/ima...al_Savings.jpg

http://www.uscentrist.org/platform/docs/irs-490px.gif

Interesting, isn't it, the correlation between the decline of the
average American and the steep rise of the top .1% over the same
period of time since Reagan? And that's for *point* 1%, not 1%.
That's how few have benefited so greatly under the trickle-down
theory, only it seems to have kind of trickled up at everybody else's
expense.

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:12:19 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

THe taxes they pay are miniscule related to the amount they make.


So what?

They must, therefore, pay more.



Why?

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:12:19 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

THe taxes they pay are miniscule related to the amount they make.


So what?

They must, therefore, pay more.



Why?


Because they benefit more.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:42:18 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:12:19 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

THe taxes they pay are miniscule related to the amount they make.


So what?

They must, therefore, pay more.



Why?

Because "we" say so

"we" make it possible for them to amass wealth

"they" don't fight wars or work

"they" certainly don't go broke by paying a commeasurate share of
their amassed wealth for that privilege.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in
society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system
that authorizes it and moral code that justifies it." The Law Frederic
Bastiat

On 1/26/10 11:09 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:42:18 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:12:19 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

THe taxes they pay are miniscule related to the amount they make.


So what?

They must, therefore, pay more.



Why?

Because "we" say so




Some logic, there, Bubba.

On 1/26/10 13:59 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:00:25 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

Because "we" say so

Some logic, there, Bubba.

Glad you think so---it's worked very well for a couple of centuries



Not the way you do it, no.

Your premises are gratuitously based in the fundament that 'there
are no enemies on the Left, and that there is no honor on the Right.'

Gratuitously denied.

That's also worked for a couple of centuries.

The notion that you can simply plunder private wealth under the
brand of 'fair share of expenses for running the society' flatly
denies that the private wealth is already taxed at a dramatically,
confiscatorily, higher rate than the base of the population. Which
those who consume the bulk of services provided by the society pay
little share of the expenses of running the society. Many, nearly
25%, pay zero share at all.

If you're going to tax income, and claim 'fair share' then tax
all income. Otherwise call it for what it is: Plunder of private
wealth. In which case the word 'fair' doesn't belong in your mouth.

On 1/26/10 18:11 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:30:10 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 13:59 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:00:25 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

Because "we" say so

Some logic, there, Bubba.

Glad you think so---it's worked very well for a couple of centuries



Not the way you do it, no.

Your premises are gratuitously based in the fundament that 'there
are no enemies on the Left, and that there is no honor on the Right.'

Gratuitously denied.

That's also worked for a couple of centuries.

The notion that you can simply plunder private wealth under the
brand of 'fair share of expenses for running the society' flatly
denies that the private wealth is already taxed at a dramatically,
confiscatorily, higher rate

So-how many millionaires went broke because of taxation?

The same number of poor people that got rich because of taxation.

That they don't go broke is not the issue. They're paying for all
the services used by people who do not pay taxes. So it's not about
funding the society, it's about confiscation so those who don't want
to earn for themselves don't have to.




If you're going to tax income, and claim 'fair share' then tax
all income.

Seems that conservatives and loonytarians keep ****ing it up.


Yes, because, as we all know, only Conservatives can do wrong.

On 1/26/10 11:09 , wrote:

"they" certainly don't go broke by paying a commeasurate share
of their amassed wealth for that privilege.


They already do. 50% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the
top 1% of income
earners.