Chaz

Thats the point. Spring Fling is a Politics and Controversy free zone. We're all going just to enjoy the meet.

 

Oh, I see... So, you're decompressing even before the event.

 

Uppity, I think that as a very rough rule, it's at an income above a quarter million a year that it becomes worthwhile to start taking real advantage of the tax shelters that the "rich" avail themselves of to pay lower tax rates than the upper middle class. I would note that the bottom half of the middle class also pays a lower tax rate - at least by my definitions, where an annual income of $50k is still middle class.

I think wealth is more important than income, though. Many of the tricks involve weird (to me, at least) rules regarding various categories of appreciated investments and how one disposes of them, and to take full advantage of those tricks one needs enough wealth to make enough different high risk investments that a few of them will come through.

I guess I'm pretty surprised if there really are a lot of people who think the "rich", by my definition above, "should" be paying a lower tax rate than the upper middle class. I'm sure the Warren Buffetts and George Soroses of the world are happy they get away with paying very low tax rates, but I question whether they actually think it's a "should" matter, as opposed to something they support for reasons of personal advantage. (It's to be noted that Buffett has supported increasing income taxes on the "less rich" - incomes in the $100k+ range - though only in ways that wouldn't really affect his own situation.)

 

Did some quick internet checks:

You are in the top 1% if you make over $300k

You are in the top 5% if you make over $125k

The top 1% of income earners pay about 32% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 51.4%. The top 10% of high income earners, pay 63.5%. The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes.

Inversely, the bottom 80% pay 20% of the taxes. Pretty impressively progressive.

If you're a median earner (about $38,000), you don't pay any federal income tax, and may get a child tax credit.

As for the pre-Spring Fling ban on controversy, that's been in effect in Vintage for all of 2005.

 

Thanks for your input Rob and Warren. It just seems we are "too rich" for many of the benefits and "not rich enough" for others It's crap.

On another note, good idea to "happy up" before the Spring Fling. Wish I could go. Too far for me. I am going to the Dragon instead. Scary

Maybe next year I can meet all of you in person!

 

Betsy,

I've never done the Dragon, but I hear it is an incredible drive. I hope to try it someday. Enjoy it.

I do hope that we all get to meet each other in the near future. That's what it's all about.

 

Cordy,

Not to be controversial, and at the risk of repeating something I mentioned earlier, thats not what makes a tax progressive. You are talking about the absolute dollars paid by classes of income earners.

A progressive tax is a tax that takes a greater percentage from the individual taxpayer as his/her income goes up. It has nothing what so ever to do with which classes are paying what as a percentage of the tax in general.

So, if a household with a disposable income (DI) of $50,000 is paying $5,000 or 10% of its DI on income tax and a household with a DI of $100,000 is paying $11,000 or 11% of its DI on tax, that tax is thought to be progressive. The theory being that as income goes up, those households can better afford to pay a higher percentage of their DI for tax.

Conversely, a sales tax is thought to be regressive because even though the percentage is set, a greater percentage of the disposable income of a middle class person is used to pay the tax than that of an upper class person. For example, compare two households one with a disposable income of $50,000 and one with a disposable income of $100,000. If both households buy only the necessities, each spending $5,000 in sales tax, the household with the $50,000 income is paying 10% of its DI on tax while the wealthier household is paying only 5%. When a lower income pays a higher percentage of its DI in tax, that tax is regressive.

 

Why can we not have a civil discourse about politics at SF? I always learn from both sides....whether I agree or not

 

Maybe I'm just turning into a Socialist--I'd just like all Americans to be treated equally. If my thoughts are "regressive", so be it.

It takes so much less verbiage to say that those making more (or less) than me are entitled to however much (or little) they earn, even if they made it by being a member of the "lucky sperm club".

 

....in the non controversial controversial thread...

Cordy
We got into spinner sharks yesterday. Your rod holders worked great.

One another note, maybe we should change the title of this to the old and boring non controversial thread.

Please pass the prozac.


fltsfshr