George Will's questions for John Kerry

Read the thread, Gunner. That's what I was responding to.

Note that their tax rate is the lowest in modern times. George Will's comment reflects the fact that they're making roughly twice as much, relative to the average, than they were in 1979.

Ed Huntress

To summarize for those who can't remember facts that conflict with their ideology: In 1979 the top 1% earned 9.58% of the money and paid 19.75% of the tax. In 2001 the top 1% earned 18.53% of the money and paid 36.3% of the tax. So while there share of tax did go up 83%, their share of the earnings went up 93%. If the top 1% were contributing at the same level they were in 1979 their share of the tax would have been 38.2%. So Mr. Wills statement is at best a gross misrepresentation.

Thank you. It gets tiring to be the only statistician on the job.

Ed Huntress

There are three kinds of liars. Liars, Damned Liars and Neo-conservative statisticians. :-)

OTOH, the rabid left has their share of statisticians too and both sides try to hide the source data. Sometimes, especially when doing research on the web, to figure out the truth you have to plot both sides and examine the mean. :-)

It is no wonder why those of us trying to figure out what is really happening feel so isolated.

That is a great idea. The government would send you a note for $25,000. It would have an interest associated with it. You could just pay the interest and that portion of the principle due according to the term of the note. You could pay it down faster if you chose. You could pay it off completely. If you didn't pay they would come and take your car or kick you out of your house. It would be just like any other loan. That would surely focus the average Americans mind on the true nature of the national debt.

Oh yea, each year you would receive another note reflecting that years additional debt.

Pete.

I am with you on that one. I bet my printing press is faster than yours! ;-)

Pete.

At least we have a lot of source material on the Web now. When I did import/export machine-tool studies in the early '80s, I'd have to pack off to the New York City library and spend a day -- sometimes two or three days -- requesting government printouts at the reference desk, and then pouring over them with a calculator and a notepad. It was exhausting to do what I can do in ten or fifteen minutes now.

As always, though, a lot of people like their information pre-digested, and they won't go to the sources. So there's a never-ending stream of bullshit to contend with. The Web has made it a lot easier for the b.s.'ers, too.

Ed Huntress

The really rich would pay it off immediately out of their kids' allowance while the rest of us are sattled with interest payments for the rest of our lives and then pass the debt on to our kids when we die doubling or trippling the debt they have to pay interest on.

Of course, the interest, not being for a home mortgage, would not be deductable.

Yes, Ed, although it's called a "check". Or any other negotiable credit instrument you care to name.

That's no fun, and it's nothing like what the government gets to do. It can just print money all day long, buy things with it, and then forget all about it.

Ed Huntress

Evidently Im only getting parts of the thread. So again, what is the total percentage of the gross taxes paid by the nation as a whole, does the Rich, pay?

I didnt ask how much they made, which is not germain, except to a socialist. How much of the tax burden did they pay?

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

So then only 1% of the population is shouldering 36.3% of the total tax load?

Seems a bit unfair, doesnt it?

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote

Glenn, I'm sure you recognize that my battle-cry to "Privatize the National Debt!" is partly a sarcastic put-down of those Republicans who pretend that privatization is the answer to everything.

But it's also, partly, a serious attempt to raise precisely the question you implicitly ask: how do we decide who owes how much? As you say, the rich would be _delighted_ to divvy up the debt per-capita. But their not-so-rich ideological allies (say, our friend Gunner) might have second thoughts.

If not per-capita, then how? As I said in another post, the tax code assigns each of us a share of the national debt now, by default. Maybe this default assignment is "fair". The Bushies don't think so, of course. In pushing tax cuts for the rich, they are really saying "The old tax code was assigning too much of the debt to the rich."

Incidentally, think about this: the national debt consists of government bonds, which are mostly owned by people rich enough to buy government bonds. It's _those_ people who _collect_ the interest that all of us together are paying.

-- Tony P.

"Gunner" wrote

Sure. _You_ should be paying more instead :-)

-- TP

You have me mistaken for a Republican sir! I am a card carrying member of the "Balanced Budget Political Party!"

Not those "Tax and Spend and Raise the Deficit" scoundrels.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

And that's bad because...?

-Jon

So you have quit the Democrat party and have joined a splinter group? I know there are a number of such forming was the Democrats eat their own while their ship is sinking.

Good! I strongly suggest becoming a libertarian. Its a better class of people.

Gunner

"To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated." - Trefor Thomas

Where to start? In the context of this thread, Will deliberately left out the reason for the statistic he quoted to make it look like the richest 1% had a tax rate increase when actually it was a decrease. That is a misrepresentation at best and closer to a bald faced lie.

Now to the question of is it right for the richest to pay a higher percentage, that has been a fact of life of several hundred years. Before there was income tax there was property tax and only the rich owned property. And before that Lords had to raise and finance armies for the King.

But the fact that they contribute a higher percentage of the total tax collected is not really the point. The fact is, after the various tax advantages available to them, the top 1% don't pay that much larger a percentage of their individual total income than the rest of us.

There is also the problem of concentration of wealth. When wealth and power get to concentrated in the hands of a very few at the expense of the majority a society is on the skids. Democracy dies and at best an oligarchy rises and at worst anarchy or dictatorship will follow. Look at any South American economy. Look at ancient rome.

You guys complain about shipping jobs overseas but the concentration of wealth increases the power of those who are doing it while the small business owner who has created the most jobs over the past 50 years and is not going to go offshore gets short end of the stick. If the current trend to reward the rich at the expense of the middle class (that's us) continues we will soon be on the way to making some combination of Soylent Green and Roller Ball a reality.

Besides, I am not sure you guys really want an "equitable" tax structure. If everyone paid at the same rate, your taxes would be at least double what they are now. If the top 10% paid only 10% of the taxes the tax bill for all the rest of us would just about triple.

You call that "class?" I would vote that way if they could get through the primary....

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================