Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
ELITE ELITE:  0
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55

Thread: Occupy... your afternoon commute :/

  1. #41
    DismalScientist is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Westover Beer Garden
    Posts
    2,644
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WillStewart View Post
    You are still dancing around the subject at hand - the tax cuts reduced average tax rates on the upper tax bracket.

    You didn't address any of my other points (including providing names of those who are in the top 1% and in government jobs), so I'll assume you concur.
    Your assumption of my concurrence is misplaced.
    Husband and wife GS15 step 10 combined earn about $320,000. That's almost there by itself.

    ...Upon reading more carefully your post, you are right. Tax cuts reduced the average tax rates on the upper tax bracket. .... And everyone else.
    But, of course that is not the subject at hand. Under these criteria, one could argue that Bush's tax cuts for the poor is causing the mess we are in with the same information.
    Last edited by DismalScientist; 11-18-2011 at 04:24 PM. Reason: Clarification

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    304
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrkenny83 View Post
    Occupy the lane!
    Bicycle rights!
    Tax breaks for cyclists!
    We are the three percent!

  3. #43
    vvill's Avatar
    vvill is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sydney AU
    Posts
    2,836
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    So 1% being $344k is based on a married filing jointly return? Or single?

    Quote Originally Posted by mrkenny83 View Post
    Occupy the lane!
    Bicycle rights!
    Tax breaks for cyclists!
    Now that's what I call progressive!

  4. #44
    DismalScientist is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Westover Beer Garden
    Posts
    2,644
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vvill View Post
    So 1% being $344k is based on a married filing jointly return? Or single?
    They took all filed individual tax returns (about 102 million) and found the cut-off point for the top 1%. So it is a combination of single and married. Returns of married filers tend to have higher incomes than single.
    http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxst...133521,00.html

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Galactic coordinates?
    Posts
    234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DismalScientist View Post
    Your assumption of my concurrence is misplaced.
    So either you don't have anything to address those other points or don't believe what you have will suffice. If you change your mind, we'll be happy to examine the substance of your claims in detail.

    Quote Originally Posted by DismalScientist View Post
    Husband and wife GS15 step 10 combined earn about $320,000. That's almost there by itself.
    You make up a scenario, yet still are not able to substantiate your allegation. We will assume you were simply making up a scenario intended as a distraction.

    Quote Originally Posted by DismalScientist View Post
    ...Upon reading more carefully your post, you are right. Tax cuts reduced the average tax rates on the upper tax bracket. .... And everyone else.
    But, of course that is not the subject at hand. Under these criteria, one could argue that Bush's tax cuts for the poor is causing the mess we are in with the same information.
    Either you are not a scientist, or you think that none of us can do math.

    Drop the top tax rate from 39% to 35%, and that means someone making $1,000,000 pays $40,000 less

    On the other hand, the little (if any) tax cut afforded a poor family can now be used to buy much needed food and shelter.

    The bottom 50% own 2.5% of the nation's wealth - there is no handwaving that can begin to point to the poor or lower middle class as the problem. I can't believe you would even try to go down this path...

  6. #46
    DismalScientist is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Westover Beer Garden
    Posts
    2,644
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WillStewart View Post
    So either you don't have anything to address those other points or don't believe what you have will suffice. If you change your mind, we'll be happy to examine the substance of your claims in detail.



    You make up a scenario, yet still are not able to substantiate your allegation. We will assume you were simply making up a scenario intended as a distraction.



    Either you are not a scientist, or you think that none of us can do math.

    Drop the top tax rate from 39% to 35%, and that means someone making $1,000,000 pays $40,000 less

    On the other hand, the little (if any) tax cut afforded a poor family can now be used to buy much needed food and shelter.

    The bottom 50% own 2.5% of the nation's wealth - there is no handwaving that can begin to point to the poor or lower middle class as the problem. I can't believe you would even try to go down this path...
    I have yet to insult you and this is my last post.

    I am approaching the top 1% with my government salary and my wife's job as an IT consultant with a government contractor. Does anyone wonder why the richest areas of the country are around Washington?

    When there are tax rate cuts, this must mean that average tax rates for all taxpayers (who receive cuts, which was everyone in 2001 and every one with income from capital in 2003) must have their average tax rates fall. When I said "Bush tax cuts for the poor" I was simply addressing the absurdity of politicians adding the "for the ..." rhetoric either in an ignorant or duplicitous manner.

    Much of the 2001 tax cuts went to upper middle class families with children because of the child tax credits. A large amount of high income taxpayers did not see a cut because they were subject to the AMT or were thrown into the AMT. And which party claims to support fixing the AMT, which by definition only falls on relatively high income folks?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Galactic coordinates?
    Posts
    234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DismalScientist View Post
    I am approaching the top 1% with my government salary and my wife's job as an IT consultant with a government contractor. Does anyone wonder why the richest areas of the country are around Washington?

    When there are tax rate cuts, this must mean that average tax rates for all taxpayers (who receive cuts, which was everyone in 2001 and every one with income from capital in 2003) must have their average tax rates fall. When I said "Bush tax cuts for the poor" I was simply addressing the absurdity of politicians adding the "for the ..." rhetoric either in an ignorant or duplicitous manner.

    Much of the 2001 tax cuts went to upper middle class families with children because of the child tax credits. A large amount of high income taxpayers did not see a cut because they were subject to the AMT or were thrown into the AMT. And which party claims to support fixing the AMT, which by definition only falls on relatively high income folks?
    Since the lowest income level of the top 1% is $386k by the following source, you may need to rethink how close you are to the top 1%. Of course, your stated position may well be understood in the light of your financial position.
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...of-income.html

    You still haven't named any couples in Government jobs that are in the top 1%, nor have you given any statistics that show what percentage of the top 1% they entail.

    When I and a number of other posters refer to the 2003 Bush tax policy as tax cuts for the rich, it is your free speech right to say that we are ignorant or duplicitous, but you show yourself to be struggling in vain to deny the obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by DismalScientist View Post
    I have yet to insult you
    Hmmmm....

    The 2003 tax rate cuts were not the same at each level (the highest tax rates dropped the most, and the lowest rates did not change), so your allusion to average rates for everyone falling is not supported by the facts. More importantly, capital gains dropped dramatically, a major cut for the highest category.

    Your discussion of AMT misses the point that much if not most of the top 1% receive a significant amount of their income in capital gains, which is taxed at the lower rate of 15%, which had dropped in the 2003 cuts. That's one reason Warren Buffet's aggregate tax rate is only 17%.

    Quote Originally Posted by DismalScientist View Post
    this is my last post
    You said that once before, a few posts back...

  8. #48
    DismalScientist is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Westover Beer Garden
    Posts
    2,644
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WillStewart View Post
    Since the lowest income level of the top 1% is $386k by the following source, you may need to rethink how close you are to the top 1%. Of course, your stated position may well be understood in the light of your financial position.
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...of-income.html

    You still haven't named any couples in Government jobs that are in the top 1%, nor have you given any statistics that show what percentage of the top 1% they entail.

    When I and a number of other posters refer to the 2003 Bush tax policy as tax cuts for the rich, it is your free speech right to say that we are ignorant or duplicitous, but you show yourself to be struggling in vain to deny the obvious.



    Hmmmm....

    The 2003 tax rate cuts were not the same at each level (the highest tax rates dropped the most, and the lowest rates did not change), so your allusion to average rates for everyone falling is not supported by the facts. More importantly, capital gains dropped dramatically, a major cut for the highest category.

    Your discussion of AMT misses the point that much if not most of the top 1% receive a significant amount of their income in capital gains, which is taxed at the lower rate of 15%, which had dropped in the 2003 cuts. That's one reason Warren Buffet's aggregate tax rate is only 17%.



    You said that once before, a few posts back...
    Have a good night's sleep.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Germantown, MD
    Posts
    455
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    For the record, I'm sorry I started this post. My intention was express my annoyance with disorganized foul smelling fools blocking roads. Not start a two page political argument.

  10. #50
    baiskeli's Avatar
    baiskeli is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,562
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MCL1981 View Post
    For the record, I'm sorry I started this post. My intention was express my annoyance with disorganized foul smelling fools blocking roads. Not start a two page political argument.
    Yes, you wanted to ignore and belittle a political protest movement. Doesn't always work out. You don't have to agree with their message or their methods (I support them in general but disagree strongly with some of both) but you can't just dismiss them and ride away without someone responding.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •