<p>Who used the word “need”? I don’t think it was me and if it was it was wrong. It’s the same reason you will never have an unemployment rate of 0%. Some people don’t want to work. There will always be folks who don’t want the responsibilities associated with having a residence. They would rather wander like a vagabond or rely on the kindness of shelters and other philanthropic entities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I support the OPPORTUNITY to have access to these things, but not the guarantee. I read “the pursuit of happiness”, in the founding documents, not the assurance of them. Some people you can’t save from themselves, and well meaning people sometimes actually create a co dependency, and prevent some from self sufficiency. Your ideals on everyone “having a seat a the table” are commendable, but not realistic. Isn’t it written, “the poor you shall have with you always?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So why bother with education, teaching, loving, nurturing, caring, etc. People can’t adapt, change, evolve, or according to your quote, regress even. We’re all robots, hard wired, not given to real change or evolution or even subject to mutation. Even if they appear to, it isn’t real according to your understanding. Wow, it sucks, being a human being, immutable and destined to be the same for the most part, from the cradle to the grave. It’s a wonder we’re not still in caves according to your mindset.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m confused. Will the real qwilde please come forward?</p>
<p>“the poor you shall have with you always?”</p>
<p>It does indeed. It doesn’t however say that “the homeless you shall have with you always.” And I believe that verse is followed by “You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.” Then again I believe dead is g-d so I have never been much good with religion.</p>
<p>And those two statments juxtaposed may seem duplicitous, but I am not referring to the single individual. I am talking about over the course of time-of generations. And I did say slight variations occur in people’s character and diposition, but not extreme variations. People stick to who they are.</p>
<p>“So why bother with education, teaching, loving, nurturing, caring, etc. People can’t adapt, change, evolve, or according to your quote, regress even. We’re all robots, hard wired, not given to real change or evolution or even subject to mutation. Even if the appear to, it isn’t real according to your understanding. Wow, it sucks, being a human being, immutable and destined to be the same for the most part, from the cradle to the grave. It’s a wonder we’re not still in caves according to your mindset.”</p>
<p>There’s quite a difference between biological evolution and one’s own prejudices. Your allusion to caves is again referring to the single individual. People change over the course of generations. A caveman did not wake up one day and decide suddenly that he would drive a car (despite what Geico commercials may have you believe). And I didn’t say human beings are immutable. They can change they just choose not to. You’re original question is too broad for me. Why bother at all would be more succint?</p>
<p>Anyhow…what were we talking about? Oh yeah. Tax rates. Hope some people are still out there with some informative things to say. Sorry for the digression.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So until the rich are compelled by their own initiative to help their fellow man, it is up to the people and the government to decide how much the rich or any of us for that matter, should be contributing to the till for the down trodden? While you may not be much for religion, the concept of alms, charity, hospitals, schools, etc, are steeped in faith based organizations. I just find it difficult that some would utilize the tax codes to underwrite the costs of the poor more than what we already do. If the poor are to be helped more, and i’m not opposed to that, then the additional resources should be supplemented by non profits and other charitable organizations as companies and individuals see fit. Not by forcing or lobying the government to coerce more from the taxpayers because someone argues that they can afford to give more of their discretionary assets/income.</p>
<p>
Well, I’m not well versed on the AMT, but in terms of federal income tax, the richest aren’t getting taxed what they were (90s).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not a tax expert, but for this comparison it is very important to know the tax burden. The middle class might also be enjoying a tax cut greater than the rich.</p>
<p>This is an example to show why the tax burden is important:</p>
<p>Lets say you invest $1000 in the US, and you get $150 at the end of the year, this is return of 15%, but if there is a 10% capital gains tax, you only get $135, implying that your tax adjusted return is 13.5%.</p>
<p>Lets say you instead invest the money in Canada, and you get $200 dollars back (I am assuming $1= I canadian dollar), this is a return of 20%, but Canada has a capital gains tax of 50% (this is not true), so you get only $100 back, this implies that your tax adjusted return is only 10%.</p>
<p>The excess return is 5% for Canada, but the tax adjusted excess return is
-3.5% for Canada. So for an investor, it will be foolish to just compare the 15% return (US) to the 20% return (Canada). You have to compare the tax adjusted returns (13.5% to 10%). </p>
<p>For the study you provided above, it is important to know the tax adjusted growth if you want to compare the two. If the tax burden on the middle class has decreased more than the rich, the difference in the growth rate wont be so high.</p>
<p>The average tax rate for the top 25% in 1996 was 18.12%, for the 2nd quintile it was 9.53% and for the bottom 50% it was 4.4%. In 2005 the average tax rate for the top 25% was 15.86% (net change -12%), for the 2nd quintile it was 6.93% (net change -27%), and for the bottom 50% it was 2.98% (net change -32%). Here is the source (last grid) - [The</a> Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data](<a href=“http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html]The”>http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html)</p>
<p>I’m not sure how the statement:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>holds any water when you look at the numbers. It is true that the “rich” are getting taxes less than they were in the 90’s but so is everyone else…and everyone else’s burden decreased to a much higher degree.</p>
<p>Thanks pmrlcomm, that is what I was talking about. This clearly shows that the middle class has enjoyed a much bigger tax decrease than the rich, so just comparing the real income growth is not a good idea.</p>
<p>“And of course BCEagle because it’s the best system you have seen, it has to be the best of all possible systems.”</p>
<p>Sometimes if someone says A, they just mean A.</p>
<p>Not A -> B. Not A -> C. Not A -> D.</p>
<p>Just A.</p>
<p>Try not to put words in others’ keyboards and avoid strawman fallacies.</p>
<p>“It does indeed. It doesn’t however say that “the homeless you shall have with you always.” And I believe that verse is followed by “You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.” Then again I believe dead is g-d so I have never been much good with religion.”</p>
<p>It is mentioned in two places:</p>
<p>Mat 26:10 When Jesus understood [it], he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
Mat 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
Mat 26:12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did [it] for my burial.</p>
<p>Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. </p>
<p>One doesn’t need to be good with religion to do a little research.</p>
<p>“And those two statments juxtaposed may seem duplicitous, but I am not referring to the single individual. I am talking about over the course of time-of generations. And I did say slight variations occur in people’s character and diposition, but not extreme variations. People stick to who they are.”</p>
<p>I frequently see great growth in character, maturity and responsibility in people. But that’s something that comes with age for them and the ability to see it.</p>
<p>Enough with the bible verses please. This is an economic discussion, not religion.</p>
<p>“Enough with the bible verses please. This is an economic discussion, not religion.”</p>
<p>I don’t see anyone discussing religion here. The Bible happens to be common literature and principles can be discussed in that vein.</p>
<p>You don’t seem to want to see a lot of things that are obvious.</p>
<p>Pmlrccomm, what you’re missing in looking at the IRS data is the growing gap between the rich and the middle class, which skews the comparison of tax rates over time. If you look at table 5 you’ll see how in just 25 years, the share of the nation’s income received by the top 1% of taxpayers went from 8.5% to 21.2%, while the share of the nation’s income received by the bottom 50% declined from 17.7% to 12.8%, with the skewing of income distribution continuing across all income groups as the gap between the wealthy and the middle class and poor widened. </p>
<p>Most of the data in the Tax Foundation’s report is taken from a set of IRS charts which are available here: [url=<a href=“http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html]SOI”>http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html]SOI</a> Tax Stats - Individual Statistical Tables by Tax Rate and Income Percentile<a href=“You%20have%20to%20download%20an%20excel%20spreadsheet%20linked%20to%20at%20that%20site;%20go%20to%20the%20bottom%20of%20the%20page%20and%20download%20Table%207.”>/url</a> What I find interesting is the set of numbers the Tax Foundation omitted: the inflation-adjusted income at which each cutoff - 50th%, 75th%, etc, occurs over time. If you look at that data you find that taxpayer’s income at the 50th percentile has actually gone down since the 80’s. At the 75th percentile it has stayed about level - about $60,000 in current dollars. At the 90th percentile you see some actual income gain - about 15%, resulting in current income of about $105,000. At the 99th percentile you see actual income growth of 60% in that time span. Above the 99th percentile the disparity in the growth in wealth has expanded even more than that.</p>
<p>What that means is that your analysis in post 109 is based on comparing tax rate changes between groups whose relative income is changing. If you cut the tax rates equally between groups where one has more income after the cut, and the other doesn’t, the cut benefits the group with growing income more, particularly with regard to flattening the progressivity of the tax structure. Bottom line: The tax cuts really did benefit the wealthy more. They ended up paying lower rates on higher incomes, while the middle class paid slightly lower rates on the same incomes.</p>
<p>“You don’t seem to want to see a lot of things that are obvious.”</p>
<p>You seem to read too much into what others write.</p>
<p>I was simply comparing the percentage of tax paid on income. I don’t think that you will find anywhere that I have stated the rich haven’t become richer. There is no arguing the fact that they have. The disparity between the have’s and have-not’s widens every year. I don’t see it as the governments role to control that. The bottom line remains that same…The more you make, the more taxes (both in dollars and percentage) you pay. Explain to me how that statement is erroneous.</p>
<p>Many of those rich some seem to decry are the innovators who started successful tech companies and created millions of good paying jobs while turning thousands into rich people. Was that so wrong??? Most of the rest are high finance people I have less positive things to say about. But maybe they are are a necessary evil to help the real innovators. That is in the best traditions of the US.</p>
<p>I don’t think they want to admit that the wealthy are the ones that drive the job market. They invest in the start-ups and make things happen. The simple fact is they hate someone having more than they do and alway fall back to the argument that they “inherited” their money. Old money or new the bottom line is they help keep people employed. There are many, many business owners who no longer need to work in order to maintain their lifestyle. I know a few personally who keep control of their companies just to ensure their employees are taken care of properly. When was the last time anyone got a decent job from someone in the bottom 50%?</p>