AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE STATISTICS

|....year....|.before or after.|..%top...|......=or>.....|....%total all...|
|...............|..tax reduction..|.income.|.......$........|.....fed.tax....|
...1999..............before.............1.........365,000............36........
...2005................after.............1.........365,000............39........
...1999..............before.............5.........145,000............55........
...2005................after.............5.........145,000............60........
...2005................after............10.........103,000............70........
...2005................after............25.........062,000............86........
...2005................after............50.........031,000............97........

|....year....|.before or after.|.%bottom..|......<or=.....|....%total all...|
|...............|..tax reduction..|..income..|.......$........|.....fed.tax....|
...1999..............before.............50.........030,000.............4........
...2005................after.............50.........030,000.............3........

The tax reduction after 1999 increased the share of taxes paid by the wealthier and reduced the share of taxes paid by the poorer.

This is because the wealthy owned a larger percentage of the pie than the poorer did. The gap between the two grew after the 1999 tax reduction.

Not hard to figure out...

Cycloptichorn

They also keep forgetting that all those who became wealthy during that period were failures and rewarded only because of their titles. Bernie Madoff became wealthy through a ponzi scheme; why shouldn't they be taxed for cheating others out of their wealth? Look at all the US auto makers who gained wealth even though they were poor managers of their companies.

Exactly who are conservatives trying to protect from our taxation system?

Most did not earn what they were paid in salaries and benefits while the average workers wages and benefits did not keep up with inflation.

They believe that was fair?

ican: "The tax reduction after 1999 increased the share of taxes paid by the wealthier and reduced the share of taxes paid by the poorer."

Cycloptichorn: "This is because the wealthy owned a larger percentage of the pie than the poorer did. The gap between the two grew after the 1999 tax reduction."

Fantastic! Let's lower taxes even more. Then the wealthy will pay an even greater share of the taxes and reduce even more the share of taxes paid by the poor.

That will in turn further increase the gap between the two! The damn greedy wealthy so and so's will invest more to earn even more. When they do that, they'll increase the wealth of the damn greedy poor so and so's by letting the poor keep more of what they earn, and by increasing their employment opportunities. That'll fix 'em!

Wow! if we can figure out additional lawful ways to make that gap even larger, let's do it. It will make all those I love even better off. Yes indeed! I no longer care how big that gap is. When it increases I'll have more and be happier for it, even though percentage wise I'll have less than the wealthy have.

Peeyew! Envy can be very expensive! Let's flush it down the toilet!

If Obama-crats have their way we'll all be a helluva lot poorer in about 10 years. That's too big a price to pay to keep what belongs in the toilet out of the toilet.

Of course, if the Obama-crats eventually put and keep us all on welfare, we will have the satisfaction of knowing for sure that the price of envy is too high for the benefits it returns.

Ahhh...?...?.. what benefits does satisfying envy bestow anyhow? Oh, I know, we'd be relieved of blaming ourselves for our accomplishing less than others.

Naaah! I'd rather blame myself for accomplishing less than others, and then working harder and smarter to accomplish more! Who needs that stinking envy anyhow?

Besides, I'm too far from being perfect to make myself perfect in what remains of my lifetime. I bet the same is true for you too, Cycloptichorn, ol' buddy!

I betcha that less than 20% of the wealthy are no damn good. Assuming the wealthy are about 5% of the population, this betcha if true would mean that less than 1% of the population were no damn good.

Whoops! I forgot the less than wealthy!

I betcha less than 20% of the less than wealthy are no damn good. Assuming the less than wealthy are 95% of the population, this betcha if true would mean that less than 19% of the less than wealthy population are no damn good.

Then less than 1% + 19% = 20% of the population are no damn good.

Would it make sense to punish the more than 80% of the population in order to punish less than the 20% of the population who are no damn good? I think not!



~~ ~ !???! ~ ~~
~~~ (O|O) ~~~
....~~ ( O ) ~~....

translation: shockingly irrational.

What an incredibly ignorant post. Just shocking. I never figured you to be a supporter of an Oligarchy.

Cycloptichorn

It's not about envy; it's about earning what you contribute. Many CEOs failed at their jobs, but got paid millions in salaries and benefits only because of their title and nothing else.

All those bankers and finance company heads who allowed derivative trading were all losers, and they didn't earn the salaries and benefits they received. They gambled with "everybody's" assets, and hardworking people who were saving for their retirements lost huge amounts (from 30% to 50%) of their hard-earned money. They should be taxed less? Why?

Your math is always amazing ican

<19 is now the same as =19? Where did you learn that math?

~~ ~ !???! ~ ~~
~~~ (O|O) ~~~
....~~ ( O ) ~~....

~~ ~ !???! ~ ~~
~~~ (O|O) ~~~
....~~ ( O ) ~~....

Foxfyre wrote

Hamilton was, in his day, an economic genius and thru my readings about his life (especially early life) I would, if I only could, put money on the Fact that he would insist any Government assistance in this area (if any) would be to establish a market based system like that Bush inplemented with Mediare part D (Drug Benefits). However, he probably would have discouraged government intervention vigorously. Government always screws up price signals when it comes to goods and services.

JM

Cicer, yes it is about envy!

The evidence is persuasive. You are implying that because some wealthy are no damn good, all wealthy ought to be punished with higher taxes for what the no damn good wealthy have allegedly done. That's equivalent to saying that because some less wealthy are allegedly no damn good, all less wealthy ought to be punished with higher taxes.

Most wealthy have earned what they contribute. Most wealthy still are earning what they contribute. Most wealthy are hardworking people who became wealthy as a consequence of their intelligence, persistance, hardwork, wise decisions, and their willingness to take the risks others were afraid to take. They should not be penalized because some wealthy are no damn good.

So far all wealthy and none wealthy alike, have equal rights according to the laws of the USA. If you cannot prove who is and who isn't no damn good, then your allegation is worthless.

The wealthy should be taxed less to equal the tax rates of the less wealthy, because we all are equal before the law. Additionally, the wealthy use their wealth in ways that not only benefits themselves, but also benefits the rest of us. Redistribute the wealthy's wealth and you will harm almost everyone, making almost all of us unhappy. Only the envious will thereby be made less unhappy.

Sarah Palin blasts Levi Johnston for talking about relationship with her daughter Bristol



Retaliatory Sarah Palin strikes again. When former future son-in-law went on the Tyra Banks show and discussed his relationship with Bristol, Palin shot off a scathing rebuke. Levi Johnston is now on her naughty list--and we know how she tried to destroy her former brother-in-law's life when he hit that list.

How does it serve the best interests of her grandchild for Granny Palin to publicly attack her grandchild's father? And this is the vengeful, immature person whom the conservatives want to run for the presidency in 2012?

yes, you should be shocked ican.
First you state it is less than 19%, then use 19% instead of less than 19% in your equation. Then you create this equation.


<1% + <19% = <20% would be the proper equation. It does not equal 20%. But your math is your math, I guess. Shocking indeed.

Alaskans are not too sharp in the upstairs department, so we can expect that Sarah Palin still enjoys high "admiration" ratings. They can't see how she misuses her power as a small state gov.

1% + 19% of the total population does not equal 20% of the total population anymore? And less than 1% + less than 19% of the total population doesn't equal less than 20% of the total population?

Wow, math sure has changed since I was in school.

It's not the problem with your school; it's how you didn't really learn math.

Less than 1%+19% equals ____?

I think that means he learned it from a monkey.

Thanks, joe, I thought it was a caricature of his ass.