Reuters reporting all tax cuts extended 2 years, Unemployment extended for 13 months.

[Lumi]

Not sure how taxing those who make more than a million bucks a year means a company can hire more workers? We are talking personal tax rate vs a business tax rate. Now, I worked for a guy. A millionaire, whose business never made a penny. This guy even paid for his groceries with company checks. Oh yes, I forgot, a big Republican! Hates those handouts.

I can only speak for the company I work for Steve.

I know what what father went thru to get to point he is at now.

I know in 85' that he thought he was going to lose everything because of the unscrupulous business practices of his partners. People that he had known for 10-15 years that ultimately cost 30 people their jobs. He was the only officer of the company to survive the mass execution and given 12 months to sort the company out which was ultimately aborbed by the investors larger corp. So in effect his head was on the chopping block for 1 year.

My dad is a boy scout, but don't fuck him around. He came from a family of Dems, his graduation present for high school was suitcase. Get out ! We don't care where you go, but you're not staying here. He worked 3 jobs plus his entire time in college and graduated with a double major. Business Ad and Law Enforcement. So he became a Secret Service Agent 2 months after JFK was shot. His badge number was below 100, that's how many Agents in the Dept of Treasury were before him. He told me, they could push the President around like he was a 10 year old.

That's just one more place he learned his ethics for later in life. Treat everyone fairly, never assume anything, never say too much, always listen.

It's just not REPUBLICANS that are bending over the ones who are need of more.

I saw his tax bill, I about shat myself. :scared

There is no way that there should be an Estate Tax !

Taxes have already been paid on those monies.

Why in the DUCK should the recipient have to pay it again, and again.....

Barry capitulated on this because he knows he is still gonna have to blow Wall Street, while the peasants are fighting about it.

 

[The Sponge]

One brief thing that comes to mind. We've had these lower income tax rates for many years now. We are in the situation we are in now financially and personally with these lower income tax rates in place. Clearly, keeping the taxes lower on a very small percentage of Americans has not prevented our economic malaise, nor has caused those small percentage of Americans to hire people, create jobs, and spend money. The small percentage of wealthy people that would continue to receive a lower tax rate will not change their spending habits, hiring habits, or whatever habits you choose to select, based on a difference in tax on their personal income. If it were that simple, they would already be doing it.

It's tax on personal income for the individual. The people in question already have plenty of money to do with what they want. They have not sustained or improved our economy WITH these lower rates.

I know a lot of people who might be in position to do some of the things that have been suggested they would do with keeping the things the same (still doesn't make sense to me...) lost a lot of their elective INVESTMENT money over the past few years. Their expensive homes lost plenty of value, which again, is an investment. Many who bought a lot on CREDIT during the Bush years during the explosion in that sector have had to try to pay that off - again - elective purchases. There has been no difference in the tax responsibilities, so to say that all of a sudden they'll START doing something new when their income tax remains the same doesn't hold much water, IMO.

This is how the rights (Fox and nitwit neo-con radio) media makes a guy sick to his stomach. I just got done explaining this same thing to someone that tried to tell me now businesses will start to hire again. How in god's name can people fall for this again.:00x4 Have u notice the big concern for the deficit dogs has had the last two years when he was stone cold quiet the last eight? Now he is back in his hypocritical nitwit neo-con hole. 900 billion is the tally we now need to borrow for this mess. Where is the tea party? :shrug: The Republican con mens followers.

 

[The Sponge]

That's just one more place he learned his ethics for later in life. Treat everyone fairly, never assume anything, never say too much, always listen.

There is no way that there should be an Estate Tax !

Taxes have already been paid on those monies.

Why in the DUCK should the recipient have to pay it again, and again.....

.

Lumy that fellow doesn't pay it again and agan. Unless he is some kind of super hero i would think once he checks out he is done paying for good.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

.............................................................

The wealthy dont spend their money that is why they have it. They hoard it because they can.


Drive older cars and try to figure out ways to screw the goverment out of their rightfull share of their tax dollars by hiring top tax attorneys and accountants.

The wealthy sucking the goverment tit.

That's is classic example of mindset of Da Base.

You really think what "others earn"--is rightfully yours--Think about it!

Kinda defines the hope --in hope and change--doesn't it?

 

[Duff Miver]

There is no way that there should be an Estate Tax !

Taxes have already been paid on those monies.

That's bullshit, and unless you're dumb as doggie, you know it's bullshit.

Most large estates gain their value from appreciation, and there is no tax on appreciation unless and until the property (which can be anything from a share of a business to farmland) is sold by the owner. Whoever inherits it can sell it immediately, tax free.

Property not sold by owner, but bequeathed, is presently not taxed at all on it's appreciated value.

For example: Daddy invested $10K in ESSO (now XOM) fifty years ago. Today it's worth $500K. Daddy dies, you inherit. you sell. No taxes are paid on the $490K gain. Nada. Zip. Zero.

Great granddaddy got 160 free acres in Iowa under the Homestead Act. It's stayed in the family, and is now owned by you, and has a value of $500K. You die, your kid inherits, she sells for $500K. Not one penny of that $500K is taxed. Nada. Zip. Zero.


Somebody, the estate, the inheritor made a shitload of money, no tax due.

You think that's fair? $500 K income, inherited, untaxed, for doing nothing at all beyond breathing, and the poor slob who works ten years to earn $500K pays taxes?

Fuck you.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

That's bullshit, and unless you're dumb as doggie, you know it's bullshit.

Most large estates gain their value from appreciation, and there is no tax on appreciation unless and until the property (which can be anything from a share of a business to farmland) is sold by the owner. Whoever inherits it can sell it immediately, tax free.

Property not sold by owner, but bequeathed, is presently not taxed at all on it's appreciated value.

For example: Daddy invested $10K in ESSO (now XOM) fifty years ago. Today it's worth $500K. Daddy dies, you inherit. you sell. No taxes are paid on the $490K gain. Nada. Zip. Zero.

Great granddaddy got 160 free acres in Iowa under the Homestead Act. It's stayed in the family, and is now owned by you, and has a value of $500K. You die, your kid inherits, she sells for $500K. Not one penny of that $500K is taxed. Nada. Zip. Zero.


Somebody, the estate, the inheritor made a shitload of money, no tax due.

You think that's fair? $500 K income, inherited, untaxed, for doing nothing at all beyond breathing, and the poor slob who works ten years to earn $500K pays taxes?

Fuck you.

Heal thyself

More lies from huffers postees--evidently no one has ever had any need for estate planning in your neighborhood muffins. you need to stick to your expertise--foodstamps and what day that gov check is in the mail.


Inherited Stock and Taxes
By Motley Fool Staff | More Articles
January 3, 2007 | Comments (0)
How do you account for stocks you inherit, for tax purposes? It can be confusing when you're lucky enough to inherit some stocks. After all, you probably don't know the cost basis of the shares, or even if you have a gain or loss.
First off, understand that there's a big difference between a gift and an inheritance (received from someone's estate). With a gift of appreciated stock or property, your basis (or cost, for tax purposes) is the same basis that the person who gave you the gift originally had. So with gifts, you need to attempt to trace the cost all the way back to the person who originally owned it and gave it to you. This can sometimes be difficult. With an inheritance, you get what is called a stepped-up basis for tax purposes. Your basis (i.e., cost) is established at the fair market value of the stock on the date of death of the donor.
The estate's tax return should disclose the value of the stock at date of death. Alternatively, if you know the date, you can get the stock price online at various sources, or even by calling your broker or the company's investor relations department and asking. Once you determine the value, back up your findings with a letter from the broker or the shareholder relations department. You'll need that information just in case the IRS wants to double-check (read: audit) your tax return.
The last time we ran this article, back in 2002, Joel B. Kantor, a certified financial planner, wrote in with an addendum. He said:

"You left out one very important bit of good news. That is: with the step-up in basis, you also receive a holding period step-up, if you will, to long-term. In other words, you can sell the inherited stock anytime after you inherit it and have the gain be taxed as long-term capital gain. This is also helpful for those wanting to make a charitable contribution because you always (almost always) want your gift of appreciated stock to be long-term."
​

Learn more about taxes in our Tax Center and at the IRS website.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
<!-- surphace end --><!-- Third Party Content Additional Links (if any). XML path and visibility is set according to Provider in code-behind -->
<!-- /entry-content --><!-- /content -->

Flip side


Family builds business from nothing employing several people--when parents die and leave business to children- estate taxes become due at IRS's evauluation. If they can't pay business is liquidated and employees lose job--

The children/loyal employees/customers

The gov/muffy and Da Base :00hour

 

[Trench]

Heal thyself

Debate requires knowledge and critical thinking, as Duff so often displays.

Trolling requires the ability to select emot-icons and cut & paste, as you so often display.

 

[Duff Miver]

Family builds business from nothing employing several people--when parents die and leave business to children- estate taxes become due at IRS's evauluation. If they can't pay business is liquidated and employees lose job--

I should call you a liar, doggie, because what you claim simply isn't true, but I guess you're simply too stupid to understand the simple rules regarding estate taxes.

As of today, there is NO estate tax applicable in any situation. None. Zero. Nada. Zippo.


The federal estate tax is repealed for one year in 2010 and will return to 2001 rates and rules in 2011.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States

Secondly, an incorporated business is not, never has been, taxable unless and until it is sold. Can you name one business with assets in excess of the proposed $5 million limit which is NOT incorporated?

I'll wait. And laugh.

 

[Duff Miver]

Heal thyself

More lies from huffers postees--evidently no one has ever had any need for estate planning in your neighborhood muffins. you need to stick to your expertise--foodstamps and what day that gov check is in the mail.


Inherited Stock and Taxes
By Motley Fool Staff | More Articles
January 3, 2007 | Comments (0)
How do you account for stocks you inherit, for tax purposes? It can be confusing when you're lucky enough to inherit some stocks. After all, you probably don't know the cost basis of the shares, or even if you have a gain or loss.
First off, understand that there's a big difference between a gift and an inheritance (received from someone's estate). With a gift of appreciated stock or property, your basis (or cost, for tax purposes) is the same basis that the person who gave you the gift originally had. So with gifts, you need to attempt to trace the cost all the way back to the person who originally owned it and gave it to you. This can sometimes be difficult. With an inheritance, you get what is called a stepped-up basis for tax purposes. Your basis (i.e., cost) is established at the fair market value of the stock on the date of death of the donor.
The estate's tax return should disclose the value of the stock at date of death. Alternatively, if you know the date, you can get the stock price online at various sources, or even by calling your broker or the company's investor relations department and asking. Once you determine the value, back up your findings with a letter from the broker or the shareholder relations department. You'll need that information just in case the IRS wants to double-check (read: audit) your tax return.
The last time we ran this article, back in 2002, Joel B. Kantor, a certified financial planner, wrote in with an addendum. He said:

"You left out one very important bit of good news. That is: with the step-up in basis, you also receive a holding period step-up, if you will, to long-term. In other words, you can sell the inherited stock anytime after you inherit it and have the gain be taxed as long-term capital gain. This is also helpful for those wanting to make a charitable contribution because you always (almost always) want your gift of appreciated stock to be long-term."
​

Learn more about taxes in our Tax Center and at the IRS website.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
<!-- surphace end --><!-- Third Party Content Additional Links (if any). XML path and visibility is set according to Provider in code-behind -->
<!-- /entry-content --><!-- /content -->

Flip side


Family builds business from nothing employing several people--when parents die and leave business to children- estate taxes become due at IRS's evauluation. If they can't pay business is liquidated and employees lose job--

The children/loyal employees/customers

The gov/muffy and Da Base :00hour

Can you even read and understand what you post?

 

[Lumi]

That's bullshit, and unless you're dumb as doggie, you know it's bullshit.

Most large estates gain their value from appreciation, and there is no tax on appreciation unless and until the property (which can be anything from a share of a business to farmland) is sold by the owner. Whoever inherits it can sell it immediately, tax free.

Property not sold by owner, but bequeathed, is presently not taxed at all on it's appreciated value.

For example: Daddy invested $10K in ESSO (now XOM) fifty years ago. Today it's worth $500K. Daddy dies, you inherit. you sell. No taxes are paid on the $490K gain. Nada. Zip. Zero.

Great granddaddy got 160 free acres in Iowa under the Homestead Act. It's stayed in the family, and is now owned by you, and has a value of $500K. You die, your kid inherits, she sells for $500K. Not one penny of that $500K is taxed. Nada. Zip. Zero.


Somebody, the estate, the inheritor made a shitload of money, no tax due.

You think that's fair? $500 K income, inherited, untaxed, for doing nothing at all beyond breathing, and the poor slob who works ten years to earn $500K pays taxes?

Fuck you.

Wow

Fuck You?

What is that all about ?

That's not what I meant and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

But first let's take a swing at your last statement.

Slob, who more than likely hasn't worked a tax paying day, since you are all about taxes, wanders across the Canadian/US Border, because it is now against the law to pick on the "No Hablas". So the Canuck pulls the pin on working at the hockey rink sharpening skates after only working under the table for 3 years. Then he applies for Social Security and gets FULL BENEFITS.

Compared to your example, this poor slob who gets $500K, has busted his ass on the farm for say, 30 years. At 42 he gets this wind fall of cash, taxed at over 35%, the farm is struggling because the federal government doesn't let him sell fruits and vegetables at roadside stands because hyper-sensitive libtards drive by and wonder if they are paying taxes on these sales.

The only thing you are truly capable of is insults.

Dumb as doggie? My dog is rather intelligent. As for DTB, for you, all you can do is call him dumb and a racist to make yourself feel superior.

And so what is larger estates gain their value from appreciation? Wasn't their a multitude of taxes paid on the estate to begin with ?

Gimme, Gimme, Gimme

That's all you want !

You have accomplished nothing, You have created nothing, you have been nowhere !

GIVE ME MORE ! I WANT MORE

THE RICH ARE EVIL !

Oh yeah,

and one more thing to offend you since you seem to always have kitty litter in your panty hose.

Merry Christmas Asshole !

 

[Duff Miver]

Wow

But first let's take a swing at your last statement.

Let's do, swing away...

Slob, who more than likely hasn't worked a tax paying day, since you are all about taxes, wanders across the Canadian/US Border, because it is now against the law to pick on the "No Hablas". So the Canuck pulls the pin on working at the hockey rink sharpening skates after only working under the table for 3 years. Then he applies for Social Security and gets FULL BENEFITS.

Tell us, how do you get full Social Security benefits without paying in at the max rate? Answer: You can't.

Strike one.

Compared to your example, this poor slob who gets $500K, has busted his ass on the farm for say, 30 years. At 42 he gets this wind fall of cash, taxed at over 35%,

Taxed at 35%? Nope. If he inherits a $500K farm and sells it for $500K, he pays zero tax.

Strike two.

the farm is struggling because the federal government doesn't let him sell fruits and vegetables at roadside stands because hyper-sensitive libtards drive by and wonder if they are paying taxes on these sales.

The federal government prohibits roadside produce stands? Nope, it doesn't.

Strike three. You're out.

The only thing you are truly capable of is insults.

Dumb as doggie? My dog is rather intelligent. As for DTB, for you, all you can do is call him dumb and a racist to make yourself feel superior.

And so what is larger estates gain their value from appreciation? Wasn't their a multitude of taxes paid on the estate to begin with ?

Nope. No taxes are paid on capital appreciation unless and until the asset is sold. If Great Grandpa's farm appreciated $500K while he owned it, there's no tax to pay unless he sells it. If left to heirs, they pay no tax on the $500K.

That's strike four. You're still out...to lunch


Merry Christmas Asshole !

And a Merry Christmas to you and your little doggie, numbnuts.

......

 

[Lumi]

you can pretend all you want as you collect your welfare check,

whomever you are ?

 

[Duff Miver]

you can pretend all you want as you collect your welfare check,

whomever you are ?

Stick it out, I'll cut it off. LOL!!!!
:facepalm:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Where the fuck is my picture of the Scarecrow with no brain?

Try your driver license :0003
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If I read one more drive by media article on vote being tax breaks to the rich I'll barf

Only thing they are voting on is wheher to renew tax breaks everyone got under GW or renew everyones except the wealthy.

have thing on utube with Sanders asking rich -

Asks the Rich: When Is Enough Enough?

Considering top 10% pay 70% of taxes--that is what we should be asking him.


I believe its time you/your crew starts paying up Tramp

You pay 3% and do 99% of the whining bout those footing 97% of the bill.
--liberal logic at it's finest.


Who Pays Income Taxes?



Who Pays Income Taxes and how much?



Tax Year 2008

<TABLE border=1 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=center><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Percentiles Ranked by AGI​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

AGI Threshold on Percentiles​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Top 1%​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

$380,354​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

38.02​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Top 5%​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

$159,619​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

58.72​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Top 10%​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

$113,799​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

69.94​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Top 25%​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

$67,280​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

86.34​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Top 50%​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

$33,048​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

97.30​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Bottom 50%​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

<$33,048​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

2.7​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=443 colSpan=3>

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[Chadman]

Wayne, again, the context of your numbers is what should be important. Again, you fail to mention WHY the upper 10% pay such a big share of the tax burden. It's because they make such a big share of the income. You're fuzzy math tells only half of the story. They pay a much larger percent, because they make such a large percent. And when you look at other incomes other than payroll, you see they pay on average less than 20% of their total income in taxes. Not too bad, I'd say, and helps explain why they are making an increasing percentage of the total income in the country.

Upper 10%
% share of income taxes = 69.94%
% share of adjusted gross income = 45.77%
Average tax rate = 18.71%

18.71% is not a bad tax rate, in the big picture, and it certainly is not keeping them from making an increasing percentage of income personally and comparatively to the lower income earners in the country. Far from it...

Bottom 50%
% share of income taxes = 2.70%
% share of adjusted gross income = 12.75%
Average tax rate = 2.59%

The numbers to compare:
The top 10% of earners make almost half the money in the country. The bottom 50% make just over 1/10th of the money in the country. You're never going to make up enough money from the bottom 10% of earnings to pay for much of anything, right? And yet you rip them for not making up the difference, and picking up the costs for those that are making most of the money?

It just makes no sense. Should government do a better job in using our money? Of course. Is the pain and discrepancy you and other conservatives cry about realistic and prohibitive to making money in this country? Of course it isn't. If it was, then the upper 10% wouldn't make all the money.

 

[kcwolf]

drive by media article

Still pimping the same old propaganda media. :0074

 

[THE KOD]

Still pimping the same old propaganda media. :0074

............................................................

DTBlackgumby is a pimp Republican neocon

hodog.

This is the fifth time I have seen him post his crap about the rich pay 90 % of taxes bullshit.

your warped dogs, just admit it

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

Try your driver license :0003
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If I read one more drive by media article on vote being tax breaks to the rich I'll barf

Only thing they are voting on is wheher to renew tax breaks everyone got under GW or renew everyones except the wealthy.

have thing on utube with Sanders asking rich -

Asks the Rich: When Is Enough Enough?

Considering top 10% pay 70% of taxes--that is what we should be asking him.


I believe its time you/your crew starts paying up Tramp

You pay 3% and do 99% of the whining bout those footing 97% of the bill.
--liberal logic at it's finest.


Who Pays Income Taxes?



Who Pays Income Taxes and how much?



Tax Year 2008

<TABLE border=1 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=center><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Percentiles Ranked by AGI​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

AGI Threshold on Percentiles​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Top 1%​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

$380,354​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

38.02​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Top 5%​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

$159,619​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

58.72​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Top 10%​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

$113,799​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

69.94​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Top 25%​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

$67,280​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

86.34​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Top 50%​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

$33,048​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

97.30​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=148>

Bottom 50%​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

<$33,048​

</TD><TD vAlign=top width=148>

2.7​

</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width=443 colSpan=3>

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Same ol' song and dance. It never ends. I actually think Sarah Palin could be smarter than you. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

 

[Trench]

The top 10% of earners make almost half the money in the country. The bottom 50% make just over 1/10th of the money in the country. You're never going to make up enough money from the bottom 10% of earnings to pay for much of anything, right? And yet you rip them for not making up the difference, and picking up the costs for those that are making most of the money?

It just makes no sense. Is the pain and discrepancy you and other conservatives cry about realistic and prohibitive to making money in this country? Of course it isn't. If it was, then the upper 10% wouldn't make all the money.

Good points Chad. As you know perhaps more than anyone here, Dogs is gonna spin the facts to support what he wants to believe, rather than take the facts at face value.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Wayne, again, the context of your numbers is what should be important. Again, you fail to mention WHY the upper 10% pay such a big share of the tax burden. It's because they make such a big share of the income. You're fuzzy math tells only half of the story. They pay a much larger percent, because they make such a large percent. And when you look at other incomes other than payroll, you see they pay on average less than 20% of their total income in taxes. Not too bad, I'd say, and helps explain why they are making an increasing percentage of the total income in the country.

Upper 10%
% share of income taxes = 69.94%
% share of adjusted gross income = 45.77%
Average tax rate = 18.71%

18.71% is not a bad tax rate, in the big picture, and it certainly is not keeping them from making an increasing percentage of income personally and comparatively to the lower income earners in the country. Far from it...

Bottom 50%
% share of income taxes = 2.70%
% share of adjusted gross income = 12.75%
Average tax rate = 2.59%

The numbers to compare:
The top 10% of earners make almost half the money in the country. The bottom 50% make just over 1/10th of the money in the country. You're never going to make up enough money from the bottom 10% of earnings to pay for much of anything, right? And yet you rip them for not making up the difference, and picking up the costs for those that are making most of the money?

It just makes no sense. Should government do a better job in using our money? Of course. Is the pain and discrepancy you and other conservatives cry about realistic and prohibitive to making money in this country? Of course it isn't. If it was, then the upper 10% wouldn't make all the money.

Didn't we just go through this--only exception we used actual tax rates instead of your 18% for top 10.

--and I'm still waiting on answer--

http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=427750

Quote:
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Originally Posted by Chadman
Wayne, considering that the top 5% of income earners make 35% of all the income in the country, and the bottom 50% make 12.75% of all the income in the country, why should the bottom 50% pay more in taxes than the upper 5%? Why should they pay anywhere NEAR as much as those that MAKE ALL THE MONEY?

And, AGAIN, considering the upper 5% make a lot of their money at much lower tax rates bringing their average tax paying percent down to about 20%, how are they being unfairly taxed?

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

They shouldn't and they don't--

according to my #'s
http://www.american.com/archive/2007...pays-the-taxes


top 1%
earn 19% of income and pay 37% of taxes

top 5%
make 33% of money and pay 57% of taxes

top 25% make 68% of money and pay 85% of taxes

Bottom 50%
make 13% of income and pay 3%
:0003
<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->