Should be an informational article for all.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040903915.html

 

In 2006, the top 20 percent of earners paid 70 percent of all federal taxes. On average, they paid 26 percent of their income to the government. The very richest -- the top 1 percent of taxpayers, with household incomes of over $332,000 -- paid 28 percent of all taxes, with an effective tax rate of 31 percent. The middle three quintiles paid rates of 10, 14 and 18 percent. The lowest 20 percent of households paid only 0.8 percent of all federal taxes -- and the bottom 90 percent of households paid only 45 percent.

 

This matters because the simple truth is that in the coming years, taxes will have to go up to help close the government's gaping fiscal hole.

 

President Obama has promised that taxes will not be increased for families making under $250,000. That is a promise that will probably have to be dropped down the road. There just isn't enough revenue to be found above that figure unless we create a system so lopsided that voters would always want more government spending because it would come at such a low price.

 

The commonly used political definition of "rich" has crept up in recent years from $100,000 to $250,000. Either that definition is going to have to change again, or we will have to come to terms with the fact that the middle class will have to face higher tax burdens, too.

"In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."

 

Per wikipedia because I'm not going to the effort of finding other sources.

 

The point being, I don't shed tears when the wealthy pay there share. The fact is the wealthy build there enterprises and wealth generators off infrastructure and other reasources provided by our American government. The roads allow them access to markets, the public schools generate a competitve workforce and etc etc with the net result being they get more money out of it than a less wealthy person does.

 

I'm more disturbed that the wealth disparity is so large than I am that the rich pay more taxes.

If all Americans are equal, the rich pay more than their fair share. Equality would be that all Americans pay the same percentage on their income, no matter how much they earn. Therefore they are paying more than their fair share. What is not being mentined is the fact they have created jobs that allows others to make a living. Please, do not complain that they are all poverty level jobs. It has been stated on this forum that even those labeled 'poor' in this country own homes, cars, have AC and a myriad of items that people in other countries see being owned only by well to do people. There will always be those who have less and yes we do have some who are in poverty, but most of the labeled 'poor' are very well off when compared even to our recent past.

"In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."

 

Per wikipedia because I'm not going to the effort of finding other sources.

 

The point being, I don't shed tears when the wealthy pay there share. The fact is the wealthy build there enterprises and wealth generators off infrastructure and other reasources provided by our American government. The roads allow them access to markets, the public schools generate a competitve workforce and etc etc with the net result being they get more money out of it than a less wealthy person does.

 

I'm more disturbed that the wealth disparity is so large than I am that the rich pay more taxes.

 

So what exactly is their share? I hear that term thrown out regularly but no one defines it.

If all Americans are equal, the rich pay more than their fair share. Equality would be that all Americans pay the same percentage on their income, no matter how much they earn. Therefore they are paying more than their fair share. What is not being mentined is the fact they have created jobs that allows others to make a living. Please, do not complain that they are all poverty level jobs. It has been stated on this forum that even those labeled 'poor' in this country own homes, cars, have AC and a myriad of items that people in other countries see being owned only by well to do people. There will always be those who have less and yes we do have some who are in poverty, but most of the labeled 'poor' are very well off when compared even to our recent past.

 

 

I love it that "equality" is only an issue when the wealthy are worried they may lose money. They don't give a hoot about "equality" as long as those making 1% of their income stay in their places. Granted the "poor" in this country are richer than the truely poor in other countries. But, comparing the poor here is like comparing the wealthy of other nations. And in a country that prides itself on equality there's an awfully huge disparity between the top earners and even the middle earners.

 

Capitalism isn't perfect, and in this country, a person's "worth" is his "wealth". Sounds pretty much like what the problems were in the societies many of the first settlers in America were looking to leave behind.

 

I'm to the point of an extreme opposite. I'm to the point of discounting the opinions of the wealthy on what constitutes "good policy" or "equality". When they care to live like the least of the American earners, struggling to decide whether health insurance is a necessity or a luxury, whether working a low paying job will bring in enough money to justify paying for day care costs, whether fixing the car or paying the electirc bill is the bigger concern, THEN I'll pity them their plight.

I love it that "equality" is only an issue when the wealthy are worried they may lose money. They don't give a hoot about "equality" as long as those making 1% of their income stay in their places. Granted the "poor" in this country are richer than the truely poor in other countries. But, comparing the poor here is like comparing the wealthy of other nations. And in a country that prides itself on equality there's an awfully huge disparity between the top earners and even the middle earners.

 

Capitalism isn't perfect, and in this country, a person's "worth" is his "wealth". Sounds pretty much like what the problems were in the societies many of the first settlers in America were looking to leave behind.

 

I'm to the point of an extreme opposite. I'm to the point of discounting the opinions of the wealthy on what constitutes "good policy" or "equality". When they care to live like the least of the American earners, struggling to decide whether health insurance is a necessity or a luxury, whether working a low paying job will bring in enough money to justify paying for day care costs, whether fixing the car or paying the electirc bill is the bigger concern, THEN I'll pity them their plight.

 

You'd be surprised at how many of the wealthy have been just where you're talking about. Remember, wealthy is now officially $250,000 per year.

You'd be surprised at how many of the wealthy have been just where you're talking about. Remember, wealthy is now officially $250,000 per year.

 

 

Not to be rude, but when someone making $250,000+/year is struggling with those decisions, they have some serious money management issues.

Not to be rude, but when someone making $250,000+/year is struggling with those decisions, they have some serious money management issues.

 

By "have been" I was referring to them building up their wealth, not that they were there now. A great many of the wealthy built themselves up from the bottom. Once someone has moved above the struggling phase, do you now discount their opinions?

Yeah, punish the rich for working hard and getting ahead... I love it when the rich get richer, because when they do they put more people to work..

By "have been" I was referring to them building up their wealth, not that they were there now. A great many of the wealthy built themselves up from the bottom. Once someone has moved above the struggling phase, do you now discount their opinions?

 

 

Depends on how they perceive those still struggling. If one discounts their struggles because one was able to overcome similar struggles, then yes. Their opinion means nothing. Two thoughts I live by "Remember where you came from", and "That which you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me".

Yeah, punish the rich for working hard and getting ahead... I love it when the rich get richer, because when they do they put more people to work..

 

:lol:

Depends on how they perceive those still struggling. If one discounts their struggles because one was able to overcome similar struggles, then yes. Their opinion means nothing. Two thoughts I live by "Remember where you came from", and "That which you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me".

 

In my business I've been very lucky to have worked with many, many people who would be considered wealthy. I can't think of a single one who discounts the struggles of those less fortunate and all of them live by the last two quotes you mentioned.

In my business I've been very lucky to have worked with many, many people who would be considered wealthy. I can't think of a single one who discounts the struggles of those less fortunate and all of them live by the last two quotes you mentioned.

 

 

So, my opinion is worthless because I've had opposite experiences?

So, my opinion is worthless because I've had opposite experiences?

 

Please, please find where I said that.

:lol:

Poor people do not create many jobs..