WE ARE SPARTACI wrote:
The richest 10 percent earn an average of $93,000 a year; the poorest 10 percent make $5,800 on average.
Anyone here know someone who makes $93K (household income)?
NOTE: A family with two wage earners making only $23 an hour makes it into the top 10%, according to this. Does anyone know anybody making under $6K? I doubt it. A $3/hr. job would gross more than that. These numbers are meaningless.
Your analysis is horribly flawed. The rest of the article refers to individual income (example: Social Security and Medicare is taxed on an individual basis, even if you "file" joint tax returns), so it would reason that the numbers in this paragraph are for an individual basis, too.
So, no, a family with two wage earners making $186,000 per year would be in the Top 10%, not the number you referenced.
Your $3/hr number is also humorous, because it assumes gainful, full-time employment (40hrs/wk) for the entire year. It obvious that the bottom ten percent of wage earners do not have full-time employment, but you missed it.
WE ARE XSABERS wrote:
The group's chief economist, Chad Stone, says the degree to which U.S. tax policies favor the poor over the wealthy "should not be a concern to people."
"We still have too much poverty," he said. "And if it were not for the progressive nature of our tax system, it would be much worse."
FLAT TAX NOW! It still favors the poor while not penalizing success.
Nope, you fail basic math again. Here's a simple example...
Let's say, right now, Joe is earning $25,000/year and Mike is earning $100,000/year. Joe is taxed at 20% ($5,000) and Mike is taxed at 40% ($40,000), so the government is earning $45,000 off of them.
The key point that EVERY conservative misses is that, should a flat tax be instituted, the government would still need to collect the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY. This can be figured out with a simple algebraic equation, where x
is the flat tax rate:
25,000x + 100,000x = 45,000
125,000x = 45,000
x = 0.36
The new flat tax would need to be 36%. Thus, Joe's taxes would GO UP 80% (to $9,000) and Mike's would GO DOWN 10% (to $36,000). As you can see, a flat tax would SEVERELY hurt the poor: Joe's net of $20k would drop to $16k, which he likely can ill-afford; meanwhile, Mark's comfortable net of $60k climbs to $64k, or enough to pay for some extra features on his new BMW.
The government wisely realizes that a person who has trouble feeding themselves and putting a roof over their head cannot carry the same percentage of tax burden as a person living in a 5,000 sq. ft. house who owns three cars. Conservatism, which is totally heartless, prefers the "sink or swim" method, where everyone must carry the same load (regardless of context), we place too much burden on those who can't handle it and just let the poor die off.
Lastly, I reference this brilliant argument (not my own), which asserts that it's usually the wealthy who leech off the work of the poor, not vice versa:
ENOUGH! Stop posting the same stupid, flawed argument over and over again! If you have a choice between making a million dollars a year to sit in an office 4 days a week or stand in a production line all day 6 days a week to earn $20,000, you're going to choose the former, EVEN IF you actually 'earned' $100 million dollars and were taxed a staggering 99%. So long as the profit motive is not completely trampled, it will continue to exist, and people will continue to strive to free-load off the hard work of others.
It just makes no sense to me at all... you blather on about how the people on welfare are just greedy leeches, exploiting the hard work of others to sit at home watching TV, and then you turn around and say it's OK to do that if you're wealthy, just because you happen to exploit that hard work in a different way? Sit down and THINK about how many double standards there are in your viewpoint. I don't think you've really thought this through at all... you just spout the same BS ultra-conservative fear-mongering over and over again. The elimination of the exorbitantly wealthy classes in favor of generally wealthier upper, middle, and lower classes will NOT eliminate the profit motive, no matter how many times you claim it will.
If you took all but a few million dollars away from the annual incomes of the top 1% of wealthy citizens in the nation, they'd still make more in a year than a vast percentage of the population will make in the majority of their careers... encouraging people to pursue exorbitant amounts of wealth and allowing them to do so does nothing but promote immorality. There's a reason there's so much corruption involved in the practices of the ultra-rich.
"I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am."
-- Joseph Baretti