[NCAces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WRONG!

They pay 53.8% according to a 2002 study. But let's not forget that people with those levels of income are quite adept at finding ways to lessen their tax burden (i.e. they have access to resources most of us cannot afford, to find ways of using their money to provide deductions and lowered liabilities)[/QUOTE]

Completely, utterly, and factually verifiably WRONG!

You're allowed your opinion, but if your gonna spout lies to support em, then welcome to ignore.

Bobby

[/ QUOTE ]

Bobby ... I am with you on almost all your arguments, and almost totally disagree with Grandgnu. I have avoided getting into this discussion because I have better things to do. That said, you are wrong on the numbers. But, does that really matter? Hell, I think that the top 5% of wage earners paying over half the income taxes is bad enough. So, the argument that it isn't 90%, it's 53%, still shows a tax disparity regarding the tax burden. As to the argument that the top 5% will avoid taxes more, let's just counter that with the fact that the top 5% also will receive far less back for the taxes paid, than those who pay little or no taxes.

NCAces

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's look at the numbers for the top 5%

They control 70% of the income/assets

They pay roughly 54% of taxes

Looks like a good deal. Not to mention that they ARE able to afford the lawyers and accountants to figure out ways to work the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

- You mention "income/assets" as if they are the same thing, when clearly they are not. That alone is fatal to this particular point of your argument. You should understand the difference between income and assets when you discuss income taxes.

- Since I am jumping in here, let's make sure the numbers are right. You can google these from 2001:

Top 5% pay 53.25%
The top 10% pay 64.89%
The top 25% pay 82.9%
The top 50% pay 96.03%
The bottom 50% pay 3.97%

of all income taxes.

Because you brought it up, what amount of "income" (not assets) do these groups "control?"

The top 1% earns 17.53%
The top 5% earns 31.99%
The top 10% earns 43.11% T
The top 25% earns 65.23%
The top 50% earns 86.19%

of all the income.

So, the top 5% of income earners make only 32% of all income, yet pay 53% of all taxes. That is not a good deal, even before you recognize that they don't get back anywhere near 53% of all services their taxes are used to fund.

- I can tell you that I am in the top 5% as are many of my friends and colleagues. Contrary to what you have been lead to believe, we don't have all sorts of ways that we can avoid taxes. In fact, with the Alternative Minimum Tax not having been indexed to inflation, we are rapidly losing ways of minimizing our tax burden that others in lower tax brackets can use. Sure, there is a small, small group of the very rich who can employ tax avoidance plans, but most of those in the top 5% can't.

- Where you and I disagree the most is with the fact that you seem to fail to recognize that there is a reason why those in the top 5% are there. Most are there because they worked their asses off to get there, and continue to do so to stay there. You want the money I make ... you work the hours I studied and worked for the past 20 years. It wasn't luck that I and most of the other 5 percenters got where they got ... it was from good old hard work and financial discipline.

- Finally, you mentioned in one of your posts about what would happen if all the money was pulled together and equally distributed. Putting the zero-sum nonsense aside, let me make two points:

1. Those who make the most money tend to be the one's who employ others. How many families rely on you every two weeks to make payroll? Over the years dozens of families have relied on my businesses to put food on the table. Take away my wealth (and I am not asserting that I am in any way a wealthy person), or even out my income and watch what would happen to unemployment. You would call it "unintended consequences" when to most in the top 5% it would be the obvious ramifications of such a stupid redistribution.

2. All the money would be right back into the hands of those that had it before within a matter of years. There is a reason that those who have it, have it. And that wouldn't change.

As to the point of the OP, the amount you need is obviously related to your stage in life and your lifestyle. Married or single? Kids? Have a house? Do you have expensive or simple tastes? Are you a gambler who might have up and down years (hopefully not down and down years)? Someone right out of college, single, no kids, might get along fine with a half million throwing off $50K supplemented with poker winnings of another $50K. Obviously, that doesn't work for someone who has a family, kid stuff expenses (the parents here will know what that means), education, and probably just higher monthly expenses. For me, it would have to be a least 5 million.

NCAces