From: Chris Bellomy on 19 Dec 2009 19:36 kenpitts wrote, On 12/19/09 6:24 PM: > On Dec 19, 6:14 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >> kenpitts wrote, On 12/19/09 11:23 AM: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Dec 17, 11:11 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >>>> Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 6:26 PM: >>>>> In article <7f-dnVvv25AyV7fWnZ2dnUVZ_opi4...(a)supernews.com>, >>>>> Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >>>>>> kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:04 PM: >>>>>>> Why does the bottom half of tax payers pay almost nothing? And the top >>>>>>> 10% pays over 70%? >>>>>> Because the top 10% makes over 70% of the income. >>>>>> This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Silly Questions." >>>>>> cb >>>>> I think you should both supply some actual figures... >>>> I was being cheeky, answering one misleading statement >>>> with another. >>>> The truth is that as of 2005, the top 10% makes 45% of the >>>> income.* However, Ken completely ignores all other taxes, per >>>> the custom of the glibertarian. Payroll taxes are utterly >>>> regressive; sales taxes are regressive; the increasing >>>> reliance on fees and tolls and lotteries to fund local >>>> and state governments are regressive. The glibertarians >>>> don't count those. >>>> In any event, the whole discussion is sorta pointless. >>>> Progressive taxation, contrary to the whines of the >>>> rich, does not target any particular group of people. >>>> Rather, it taxes a specific action which is harmful >>>> to the economy -- the hoarding of money. Anyone who >>>> doesn't want to pay top marginal rates is free not to >>>> hoard. Pretty simple. >>>> cb >>>> *http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html >>> "Payroll taxes are utterly regressive; sales taxes are regressive;" >>> How do you figure? Whatever comes out of your check is mached by your >>> employer. >> There's a hard cap on the amount of payroll tax that one >> can pay. If you earn more than ~$100k/year, you quit >> paying payroll tax for everything above that. It doesn't >> get any more regressive than that. >> >> BTW, my email address is the same as before. chris at >> goodshow dot net >> >> cb- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > That amount continuously goes up. I can remember one yearI burst thru > by making about $50K. Yeah, it adjusts for inflation. Nevertheless. cb
From: Chris Bellomy on 19 Dec 2009 19:36 BAR wrote, On 12/19/09 6:29 PM: > In article <d6udndTwh7N58bDWnZ2dnUVZ_jZi4p2d(a)supernews.com>, > ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says... >> kenpitts wrote, On 12/19/09 12:12 PM: >>> On Dec 18, 11:46 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >>>> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/18/09 8:47 AM: >>>> >>>>> Hoarding is not really why there's a shortage of money in >>>>> circulation... is it? >>>> Hoarding may not be the best verb, but overconcentration of >>>> capital is a well-understood red flag for any market economy. >>>> Economies with more equitable distribution of capital are >>>> more robust, with more competition and fewer single points >>>> of failure. Progressive taxation is the best and most >>>> efficient brake against overconcentration, for a number >>>> of reasons I'm too tired to list. (Any day that ends up >>>> with my wife in the hospital is gonna be exhausting.) >>>> >>>> Americans, for all their puritanism about most other >>>> deadly sins, have no issue with greed. But greed is a >>>> sin for a reason. I'm not even going to say what my >>>> idea of that reason is -- I think it's enough to say >>>> that there's a good reason. There's a difference between >>>> building financial security for one's family and >>>> accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn >>>> to encourage the former while discouraging the latter, >>>> we're going to have these problems. >>> "accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn >>> to encourage the former while discouraging the latter, >>> we're going to have these problems." >>> >>> Part of what happens in this country is incentive. Motivation to build >>> a better mouse trap. >> Understood. But there are limits. In fact, there are things >> for which we want to *remove* incentives. Otherwise, we end >> up in our current situation, just like we did in 1933. >> >> The tendency of wealth to gravitate to itself has to be >> curbed if you want capitalism to survive. That's just how >> it is. > > Fight on mighty class warrior. Not a class warrior. I just want capitalism to work right. cb
From: Chris Bellomy on 19 Dec 2009 19:37 BAR wrote, On 12/19/09 6:24 PM: > In article <d6udndjwh7OF9rDWnZ2dnUVZ_jZi4p2d(a)supernews.com>, > ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says... >> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/19/09 7:46 AM: >>> On Dec 19, 12:46 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >>>> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/18/09 8:47 AM: >>>> >>>>> Hoarding is not really why there's a shortage of money in >>>>> circulation... is it? >>>> Hoarding may not be the best verb, but overconcentration of >>>> capital is a well-understood red flag for any market economy. >>>> Economies with more equitable distribution of capital are >>>> more robust, with more competition and fewer single points >>>> of failure. Progressive taxation is the best and most >>>> efficient brake against overconcentration, for a number >>>> of reasons I'm too tired to list. (Any day that ends up >>>> with my wife in the hospital is gonna be exhausting.) >>>> >>>> Americans, for all their puritanism about most other >>>> deadly sins, have no issue with greed. But greed is a >>>> sin for a reason. I'm not even going to say what my >>>> idea of that reason is -- I think it's enough to say >>>> that there's a good reason. There's a difference between >>>> building financial security for one's family and >>>> accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn >>>> to encourage the former while discouraging the latter, >>>> we're going to have these problems. >>> It seems to me that most of our problems are from people spending more >>> than they have and taking big chances (houses, businesses, etc). >> This wouldn't happen if you didn't have people who >> actually *have* that money dangling it in front of >> the have-nots with sweet nothings of "easy credit" >> whispered in their ears. > > I didn't loosen the lending laws and I didn't encourage anyone to loosen > the lending laws. Did you vote Republican?
From: BAR on 19 Dec 2009 19:39 In article <d6udndXwh7Pp8bDWnZ2dnUVZ_jZi4p2d(a)supernews.com>, ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says... > > kenpitts wrote, On 12/19/09 11:23 AM: > > On Dec 17, 11:11 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >> Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 6:26 PM: > >> > >>> In article <7f-dnVvv25AyV7fWnZ2dnUVZ_opi4...(a)supernews.com>, > >>> Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >>>> kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:04 PM: > >>>>> Why does the bottom half of tax payers pay almost nothing? And the top > >>>>> 10% pays over 70%? > >>>> Because the top 10% makes over 70% of the income. > >>>> This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Silly Questions." > >>>> cb > >>> I think you should both supply some actual figures... > >> I was being cheeky, answering one misleading statement > >> with another. > >> > >> The truth is that as of 2005, the top 10% makes 45% of the > >> income.* However, Ken completely ignores all other taxes, per > >> the custom of the glibertarian. Payroll taxes are utterly > >> regressive; sales taxes are regressive; the increasing > >> reliance on fees and tolls and lotteries to fund local > >> and state governments are regressive. The glibertarians > >> don't count those. > >> > >> In any event, the whole discussion is sorta pointless. > >> Progressive taxation, contrary to the whines of the > >> rich, does not target any particular group of people. > >> Rather, it taxes a specific action which is harmful > >> to the economy -- the hoarding of money. Anyone who > >> doesn't want to pay top marginal rates is free not to > >> hoard. Pretty simple. > >> > >> cb > >> > >> *http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html > > > > "Payroll taxes are utterly regressive; sales taxes are regressive;" > > > > How do you figure? Whatever comes out of your check is mached by your > > employer. > > There's a hard cap on the amount of payroll tax that one > can pay. If you earn more than ~$100k/year, you quit > paying payroll tax for everything above that. It doesn't > get any more regressive than that. There is no cap on payroll taxes over 100k/year. There is a cap on Social Security Taxes over a certain dollar amount per year. But, the Federal, State, Local and Medicare taxes continue to be withheld beyond 100k/year. I do have personal knowledge in this area. But, if you are correct in that all income earned over 100k/year is not taxed then I would appreciate it if you would tell my company because they are unaware of this "fact." > BTW, my email address is the same as before. chris at > goodshow dot net >
From: BAR on 19 Dec 2009 19:44
In article <4dednVSnoI0y7LDWnZ2dnUVZ_vFi4p2d(a)supernews.com>, ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says... > > BAR wrote, On 12/19/09 6:24 PM: > > In article <d6udndjwh7OF9rDWnZ2dnUVZ_jZi4p2d(a)supernews.com>, > > ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says... > >> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/19/09 7:46 AM: > >>> On Dec 19, 12:46 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >>>> dsc-ky wrote, On 12/18/09 8:47 AM: > >>>> > >>>>> Hoarding is not really why there's a shortage of money in > >>>>> circulation... is it? > >>>> Hoarding may not be the best verb, but overconcentration of > >>>> capital is a well-understood red flag for any market economy. > >>>> Economies with more equitable distribution of capital are > >>>> more robust, with more competition and fewer single points > >>>> of failure. Progressive taxation is the best and most > >>>> efficient brake against overconcentration, for a number > >>>> of reasons I'm too tired to list. (Any day that ends up > >>>> with my wife in the hospital is gonna be exhausting.) > >>>> > >>>> Americans, for all their puritanism about most other > >>>> deadly sins, have no issue with greed. But greed is a > >>>> sin for a reason. I'm not even going to say what my > >>>> idea of that reason is -- I think it's enough to say > >>>> that there's a good reason. There's a difference between > >>>> building financial security for one's family and > >>>> accumulating an obscene fortune, and until we can learn > >>>> to encourage the former while discouraging the latter, > >>>> we're going to have these problems. > >>> It seems to me that most of our problems are from people spending more > >>> than they have and taking big chances (houses, businesses, etc). > >> This wouldn't happen if you didn't have people who > >> actually *have* that money dangling it in front of > >> the have-nots with sweet nothings of "easy credit" > >> whispered in their ears. > > > > I didn't loosen the lending laws and I didn't encourage anyone to loosen > > the lending laws. > > Did you vote Republican? Did you note Democrat? |