RoR: Forum

I'm looking forward to some skewed results that are completely non-representative of our nation's population.

Post 1

Monday, April 6, 2009 - 6:33pm

Noooooooooooooooooooo!

Post 2

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 4:43am

I support higher taxes on only those individuals that make between $250,000.15 and $250,000.16 per year.

BTW who voted yes to this poll? And why?
(Edited by John Armaos on 4/07, 4:44am)

Post 3

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 5:40am

I wasn't sure which way to vote. I would like to see far higher taxes on Barack Obama, who has income far in excess of $250,000, counting income from his books.

Post 4

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 6:56am

And maybe a 90% tax on members of Congress during the years 2001-2009, for taking money they did not earn.

jt

Post 5

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 4:37pm

According to the Congressional Budget Office:

In 2006, the highest quintile earned 55.7 percent of pretax income and paid 69.3 percent of federal taxes, while the top 1 percent of households earned 18.8 percent of income and paid 28.3 percent of taxes. In all other quintiles, the share of federal taxes was less than the income share. The bottom quintile earned 3.9 percent of income and paid 0.8 percent of taxes, while the middle quintile earned 13.2 percent of income and paid 9.1 percent of taxes.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=226

See also, this spreadsheet of the data
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2009/all_tables.xls

Post 6

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 6:50pm

Michael does the statistic mean that the top 1% only paid 18.8 percent of their personal income to taxes? Or that the top 1% paid 18.8 percent of all taxes the government collected? I'm guessing it's the latter.

Post 7

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 7:11pm

John,

Neither.

It means the top 1% (the individuals who earn more than the other 99% of us earn) earned 18.8% of all income and paid 28.3% of all federal taxes.

Post 8

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 7:12pm

Ahh, thanks Jon. I should learn my lesson not to read forums posts on three hours of sleep.

Post 9

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 7:51pm

The beauty of the statistic is that it shows that �the rich� (defined not as earning over $250K, but as earning more than 99% of the population earns,) rather than needing to pay their �fair share,� are actually currently paying on average 50% more than their �fair share.�

Post 10

Tuesday, April 7, 2009 - 8:27pm

Indeed Jon. It's disconcerting that so many Americans believe in class warfare.

Also, I see now three people voted yes. Who are these three people? Speak up! Why do you think they should pay more?

Post 11

Wednesday, April 8, 2009 - 8:02am

Well, I cannot speak for the yea-sayers. (I said nay.) But on the left, there was the strategy of "up against the wall." The idea was to intensify the struggle so that those proletarians with privileges -- union members; engineers; accountants -- lose them and realize that their true class interest is in fighting the common oppressor.

The John Galt Strike was the capitalist version of that. As long as the producers made the system work, half-way measures would keep them pitted against themselves and each other, as the looters continued to get away with their plunder.

Once the kid gloves were off, the government was forced to become more dictatorial, thus, in turn, creating more ever strikers, which worsened the situation, and so on. On that basis, raising the taxes on the rich might be one way to wake them up to their true class interest.

Against all of that, one voice of reason, Reason editor Virginia Postrel penned The Future and Its Enemies to expose the "book of revelations" mind-set of many conservatives, libertarians and objectivists.

Post 12

Friday, April 10, 2009 - 11:19am