I feel left out

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

I have no health insurance. Does that mean I'm poor?

Not if you never get sick.

[Elspode]

And don't forget, Spexx, that those billionaires use all that extra tax free income to stimulate our economy, which benefits us all. For example, Jose might not have his own pickup and weedeater for his lawn service. LaShawna might not have that Merry Maids position. My own son might not have that pizza delivery opportunity.

Yes, billionaires and their tax free income are the backbone of this country. Don't forget..the Trickle Down theory does *not* refer to urine!

[Ibby]

Trust me, veryveryveryveryVERY few Americans are as poor as most Chinese, or (and ESPECIALLY) North Koreans... not to mention Thais, Indonesians, Vietnamese, Cambodians...

Poor in America is still poor, and not a good thing, but its better than MIDDLE-CLASS lots of places.

And yes, I've SEEN those places.

Originally Posted by Ibram

Trust me, veryveryveryveryVERY few Americans are as poor as most Chinese, or (and ESPECIALLY) North Koreans... not to mention Thais, Indonesians, Vietnamese, Cambodians...

Poor in America is still poor, and not a good thing, but its better than MIDDLE-CLASS lots of places.

And yes, I've SEEN those places.

I've seen what it is to be poor in Brazil, and its absolutely heartbreaking. I am not very happy about being poor in America, but I live like a queen compared to those folks in Brazil. I don't have a cell phone, but I do have an old color TV that I bought at a pawn shop. My car is a very expensity necessity that drives me crazy, worrying how to maintain it. I live in a small town, 19 miles away from my doctor and the nearest grocery store. There is NO public transportation out here, so without a car, you're dead meat. I manage to scrape together money for my Internet service, though, and I do get medical care and I never go to bed hungry. I'm sure a poor person in Brazil would give their left nut to trade places with me.

The problem in the US is that the gulf between the rich and the poor has been getting wider for quite some now. The lower and middle classes bear the lion's share of the tax burden, while the billionaire skates. Meanwhile funding for stuff like education and public health keeps getting cut, and we spend zillions of dollars on an immoral foreign war.

In the end, comparing the US to some poor third world country is a cop-out. Its like saying, "I may be a thief, but at least I don't kill people." True enough, but its still wrong to steal, and since when did the US need to compare itself to the likes of Cambodia or Brazil?

[Happy Monkey]

But what is the purpose of making that comparison? Is being better off than third world countries something worth bragging about? Is something good enough as long as it could be worse?

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

But what is the purpose of making that comparison? Is being better off than third world countries something worth bragging about? Is something good enough as long as it could be worse?

Eventually things have to be good enough. Don't you think that Bill Gates has enough money, or do you think he needs to try and increase his profits even more? We are not bragging we are comparing. We compare ourselves to others so that we have a idea of how much we know where we place on a world scale. Kinda like when they survey and say that 30% make $(A) a year; 40% make $(B) a year, and 25% make $(D) a year and 5% picked other. It is just a comparison

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

Eventually things have to be good enough.

I hope so. That's the goal, anyway.

[9th Engineer]

Before we get carried away with statements about how the rich are getting away without paying taxes lets look at some numbers

Income Class tax generation

top 25% - 83.9 % of US tax revenue

top 10% - 65.8% of US tax revenue

top 5% - 54.4% of US tax revenue

top 1% - 34.3% of US tax revenue


http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0512070900.asp

[Ibby]

I'm not making any judgement ON the fact, I'm just backing up that it is true.

[Happy Monkey]

How does that compare to wealth distribution?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Tax burden shifts to the middle

[Rock Steady]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Tax burden shifts to the middle

... The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. ...

This is seriously unconvincing. I know a lot of people making a lot less than they did in 2001.

I can't believe that 20% of Americans make more than $180K a year. That's just ridiculous.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Rock Steady

... The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. ...

This is seriously unconvincing. I know a lot of people making a lot less than they did in 2001.

I can't believe that 20% of Americans make more than $180K a year. That's just ridiculous.

And I know a lot of people making more than in 2001, what does that prove?

It doesn't say 20% make more than $180k, it says 180K is the average for the top 20 %. That can be a very few making much more and a whole lot making less. It would be clearer as a mean or percentile, but it's not.

[Rock Steady]

From original article:

... But in 1960, it was also the case that over two-thirds of Americans said they trusted government to do the right thing most of the time. ...

These days I trust individuals to do the right thing more than government. I think that The Gates and The Bono should decide rather than The Bushes.

I paid $970,000 in Federal Taxes in 1999, so I appreciated reducing to that level by my own decisions to fund specific schools and charities of my own choice. (note: my tax rate was 50%, being "new money").

My newest stock options in several companies may pay out again. I'd rather decide where my donations go rather than the government decide. What's wrong with that?

Also, the federal government should allow stock dividends to be expensed by the company rather than the idiotic double-taxation of corporate dividends to investors. Current law favors risky growth-first stocks, at what national interest?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Rock Steady

From original article:

... But in 1960, it was also the case that over two-thirds of Americans said they trusted government to do the right thing most of the time. ...

These days I trust individuals to do the right thing more than government. I think that The Gates and The Bono should decide rather than The Bushes.

...
Yeah, but what about the guys from Enron and Worldcom deciding?

Originally Posted by Rock Steady

My newest stock options in several companies may pay out again. I'd rather decide where my donations go rather than the government decide. What's wrong with that?

The problem with that is that we're all likely to help those who are like us. If you donate to the Baptist church, they'll help Baptists. Donate to the Rotary Club, and they give scholarships to kids in their own communities - which means the wealthier communities get bigger/more scholarships. So poor, inner-city folks give what little they can, if anything, and those in their communities, who need the most, get the least.

In regards to the taxation issue. I can't find the resultant tax rate or tax dollars paid by these groups of folks. If your income is, say, $1 million, how much tax do you really pay? What percentage of their income does that represent? How much for the $51K to $75K range? What is their disposable income? I've searched for this info, but I can't seem to find what I'm looking for.

The question remains: Is the US better off with a large gap between rich and poor, or a small gap?