Bimbo Ho-Hos?

The problem with this logic is it doesn't take into account welfare and other benefits given to people with low to moderate incomes.

If you want to put it in the crudest possible terms, people who are at or near poverty incomes normally owe no income tax but receive thousands of dollars in handouts per year including Section 8 housing vouchers, food stamps, Medicaid and free school lunches. If you impose or raise taxes on this group you're setting up an endless loop of money flowing back and forth to the same person.

 

His rent/house payment probably is not the same as yours either. Rich folks spend a lot of money that supports small bidness. Someone has to build the gold plated platinum yachts. :-D

 

Which one of the bolded subjects is it? :confused

 

Here are some more revealing statistics, Fred. 12.8% of total taxpayers, took home half the nation's annual income in 2011. So, rough guess on my part is that 10% probably took home 45% of the nation's income, and paid 38% of the taxes per your stats.

See the other graphs here:

http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=267338


It seems uploading a photo is like Daffy Duck in a devil suit. You can only do it once, no matter the file name.

 

Oh, and when we're talking the "1%", you are discussing persons whose income not only exceeds 5 million dollars per annum, the top "earners" take home in excess of 20 million dollars per annum as an average.

When you take that much excessively with your income, it's only logical you would pay an incredible amount of taxes. Add to that the fact that 66% of this country took home 50k, or LESS in fiscal year 2011 (87% took home 100k, or less as a group) and their "burden" starts to look pretty lean...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-grayson/walmart-black-friday-_b_2185675.html

So in reality the taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart because Walmart is not providing a liveable wage to their *associates*.

Who would want to eat voluntarily at an Aloha Snackbar?

 

Yes, I found out you can only post a picture once, not sure what is up with that. But what about the approximately 47% of the population who does not pay federal income tax at all? That might skew an income chart.

And of course many of that 47% are students, and retired people. But, some people get more from the gumbnet than they pay in. Like the EIC, and entitlements.


Oma, "Who would want to eat voluntarily at an Aloha Snackbar? " it is not a place to eat. :-D It is a small but growing movement. To put it simply, some Conservatives have pretty much decided the economy is going to tank. So, why not adopt liberal views and get any and all gubment money they can, and pay the least in taxes. All in a legal fashion of course.

But don't yell "Aloha Snackbar" in a crowded place. If you say it fast enough, it will most likely attract security.

Sorry about the thread drift there.

 

Oh, knowing you Fred, I knew your signature has an underlying (political) meaning. That's the reason why I posted about it. You didn't need to explain it to me. :-D

 

How so?

One man, one vote. Why should buffett pay one more dime than me?

 

Me? Political? I am shocked! Mortified actually. :-D:-D

 

I hate to say it, but, as usual this thread has gone way off track into the political realm. Not even resembling the original query.

 

Well, yeah. :-D

So, what are your thoughts on the OP?

 

So we're all agreed then. Everyone should pay a flat 200% of their yearly income in taxes, and all assistance programs should be cut completely...

 

400% sounds more fair to me. :-D And just cut 95% of assistance.:-D

 

let the record show, i tried to get us back to the OP about 30 posts back!

 

That sort of thing never works.

And no, Laura, they don't.

 

:kissmy :-D:-D

If people are not interested, they don't have to read it or post in it. Or you can just lock the thread if you wish. I thought some thread drift was OK in the Lounge section.

 

I made the initial announcement that Twinkies were dead. It's the autopsy that's taking forever. :-D

 

Our formerly more progressive tax system is what built this country, and kept "gumbnet" debt down.

It's kind of interesting the inverse proportion of sorts that has gone on in the last thirty years.

I heard today that this will be the "biggest" cyber shopping gig ever. It's also a time in history when there has been more "wealth" (read printed money) in existence than ever, and things have never been more expensive. Go figure...

 

I got Twinkies in the fridge. :-D

 

laura, the reason none of us can stay on topic here is that we're all suffering from SUGAR WITHDRAWAL!!!! DUH!

 

You need a Twinkie. :-D

 

I have never heard anyone in the UK use the phrase John Thomas. I assume it died out sometime around 1950 or so where most Americans assume we live.

 

Never heard of the term "John Thomas", either in that context, and I was born in the U.K. at the end of the fifties as well. I think it's just another thing some Americans think English say. Like they think all Aussies dress and talk like Steve Irwin, (The Crocodile Hunter). That's just for tourists who have no clue.

 

nah, we all think you live in 1972 with benny hill and emma peel.

i have actually heard "john" a bit in the states. i assumed it was from "johnson" (common here) but who knows, maybe "john thomas" was one of ours as well?

i've never heard it tho. it sounds more like 1650 than 1950 -- sure you didn't pick that up in some "Pirates" movie, gman?

 

Try this read on for size:

http://www.amazon.com/Predator-Nation-Corporate-Criminals-Corruption/dp/030795255X


Cat, I think you'd LOVE IT!

 

one of these things is not like the other....

http://www.google.com/search?q=adm+...a=X&ei=81u2UOS1BeqN0QGR64DwDA&ved=0CAQQ_AUoAA

that CUPCAKE really makes me laugh!

 

Monty Python used "John Thomas" a few times in their sketch comedy. This is where I picked it up from.