How much money do you need?

[Bobby Cannoli]

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 deducations and lowered liabilities)

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

[grandgnu]

[ 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 deducations and lowered liabilities)

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 ]

Here are some links to my "lies". If YOU'RE going to call people names or accuse them of things, be sure YOU can back it up first numbnuts:

Link 1-Proof

Link 2-Proof

[NCAces]

[ 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 deducations 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 Grandnu. 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

[grandgnu]

[ 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 deducations 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 Grandnu. 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.

[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

[grandgnu]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm discussing wealth distribution in the U.S. Aren't some assets taxed?



[ QUOTE ]
- 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this isn't just about their yearly income, it's also about their ownership of the majority of assets within the U.S., it's like a friggin feudal system.




[ QUOTE ]
- 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.[ QUOTE ]


Well, I apologize if my belief is incorrect. But, the top 5% ARE a small, small group, and they still control an inordinate amount of wealth compared with the other 90% of the population.





[/ QUOTE ]- 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't dispute that "some" of those in the top 5% achieved their wealth through hard work, intelligence, study, etc.

But, how many are just wealthy because that wealth has remained within their families for generations and been passed down?

How many are wealthy because they subsist off the labors of others? A lot of them couldn't be wealthy if they weren't born into it. Again, I have had some bad experiences with wealthy family-run businesses, and it's left a bad taste in my mouth.

And I don't dispute that there are plenty of lazy people at the bottom who don't want to work at all, but there are also plenty who are poor who would prefer more opportunities available to them.

But so many jobs pay very low wages, benefits are being cut, there isn't even a lunch hour anymore, it's a working 30 minute lunch of a lot of people.

The upper echelon is driving our nation to madness and causing all sorts of social ills because of the demands in the workforce. Again, stress levels are higher, you don't have community gatherings or friendly neighbors like you used to (I'm in the NorthEast U.S., and we're just constantly on the go, I would prefer a simpler, slower lifestyle)

People are commuting 1.5-3 hours to work one-way, and then working 8-12 hours a day, coming home, crashing and doing it all over again. And because of the economy, anyone can lose their job at anytime, so it's difficult for workers to stand up for their rights and be treated fairly, because they can be so easily replaced.

I'm not saying that ALL of the upper echelon treat their employees this way, but it's become pretty standard in my experience.


[ QUOTE ]
- 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not suggesting we re-distribute the wealth evenly, I was just pointing out the figures for that re-distribution.

And yes, those who make the most money tend to be employers, who are becoming wealthy because of their employees hard work.

But the greed at the top never seems to end. They're always looking for a way to squeeze another dime out of a nickel, so to speak.

It's all "how can we get rid of Joe, who's been with the company for 15 years, and hire Mikey who's fresh out of college at one-third the pay and reduced benefits?"

I guess I'm saying that our government, and big business, has been socially irresponsible, to benefit a minority of the population that really isn't in any need of such benefits.

By trying to squeeze so much productivity out of the workforce, and by putting more requirements on employees and providing them with less benefits, we now have a society filled with people who are stressed, overweight and depressed.

Productivity levels will decrease because the employees will be unhappy or bored with their jobs. The majority of people I interact with (since you seem to interact with the top 5% of the population) are not rich, and just go to their jobs to "collect a paycheck" and that's it. There's no company loyalty anymore, and that saddens me.

[SpearsBritney]

"Something needs to change" says the gazelle. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

"What's the problem?" asks the cheetah. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
"Something needs to change" says the gazelle. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

"What's the problem?" asks the cheetah. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

nh sir

[SpearsBritney]

I agree with you 100%. Most of us are nothing more than “climate controlled” slaves. I have come to realize though, that it has always been this way. It’s just more cleverly disguised now, which makes us much more efficient automatons.

This used to bother me to no end, until I realized this was the nature of human existence. In the animal kingdom, stronger genes thrive and survive, while the weaker genes quickly die off. It is this process that keeps the species strong. However, with humans, this process has radically evolved. Instead of the weaker genes dying off quickly, they are kept alive, and enslaved for the progression of the stronger ones.

Now some people will argue that our entire species benefits from this process, but I disagree. In my opinion, the relatively few that thoroughly enjoy their lives, nowhere near compensates for the amount of suffering that takes place in this horrible world.

It will never change, except to get worse. The majority will continue to suffer, while the elite few enjoy the ever-illusive pleasures that come with power, freedom, and luxury.

It is true that if you work hard enough, you can attain you desires and achieve your goals, but most of these are manufactured, and leave no real lasting satisfaction anyway, which makes me feel like they're not even worth the fight.

After years of severe depression and anxiety, I have finally hit “rock bottom”, and have subsequently been forced to, as Tyler Durdon so eloquently put it, “just let go!”

It has been three months since I walked out of my [censored] job mid-shift, and have finally spent the last of my dwindling supply of money. Consequently, I was evicted from my apartment, and am now temporarily staying with a friend. My plan is to move out to B.C., where I will live in a mountain cave, until I can figure out when and how I’m going to kill myself.

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you 100%. Most of us are nothing more than “climate controlled” slaves. I have come to realize though, that it has always been this way. It’s just more cleverly disguised now, which makes us much more efficient automatons.

This used to bother me to no end, until I realized this was the nature of human existence. In the animal kingdom, stronger genes thrive and survive, while the weaker genes quickly die off. It is this process that keeps the species strong. However, with humans, this process has radically evolved. Instead of the weaker genes dying off quickly, they are kept alive, and enslaved for the progression of the stronger ones.

Now some people will argue that our entire species benefits from this process, but I disagree. In my opinion, the relatively few that thoroughly enjoy their lives, nowhere near compensates for the amount of suffering that takes place in this horrible world.

It will never change, except to get worse. The majority will continue to suffer, while the elite few enjoy the ever-illusive pleasures that come with power, freedom, and luxury.

It is true that if you work hard enough, you can attain you desires and achieve your goals, but most of these are manufactured, and leave no real lasting satisfaction anyway, which makes me feel like they're not even worth the fight.

After years of severe depression and anxiety, I have finally hit “rock bottom”, and have subsequently been forced to, as Tyler Durdon so eloquently put it, “just let go!”

It has been three months since I walked out of my [censored] job mid-shift, and have finally spent the last of my dwindling supply of money. Consequently, I was evicted from my apartment, and am now temporarily staying with a friend. My plan is to move out to B.C., where I will live in a mountain cave, until I can figure out when and how I’m going to kill myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch, let's not get crazy now friend. We still have a lot of evolution to do, and I don't believe we're a lost cause. Change and progression is always possible, and I believe eventually we'll get it right.

I chose to work 32 hours a week, because anymore and I'd go crazy (this doesn't count the poker I play on the side). I could have easily been working 40-48 hours or more. I also had the opportunity to be the supervisor for my department, but didn't want the hassle. Life is too short, so I decide to try and enjoy life instead. And if I can't purchase something outright, I usually don't (i.e. I try to avoid getting into credit card debt if possible)

I think another major problem humanity faces is that we are parasites on this planet, sucking our host dry without providing it much benefit.