SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Castle
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tejek who wrote (2105)10/8/2003 11:45:41 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) of 7936
 
That's income.....it doesn't begin to address their assets.

That's true but the income is what becomes their assets. If their income is going down their assets are probably not increaseing as fast. Also in many cases their assets went down more then their income as the stock market bubble burst in the last few years.

" In fact, since the top in 2000, individual tax receipts have fallen by over 23% -- and there sure hasn't been any 23% tax cut in effect since 2000. And Social Security tax receipts continue to rise, indicating that it's not a matter of overall unemployment."

No

Why no? All ofthat is true.

That's just one metric. Besides, there's the matter of Bush and the GOP spending like there's no tomorrow. And Iraq is a prime recipient.

True but its the biggest one.

Tim, I think I am going to break down. Tears are flooding my eyes. All I can think of is the poor rich having to wear generic and drive American. Its too much to bear.

The comment you responded to was primarily about the fact that since the rich are making less money it is hurting tax reciepts. The point was not "Oh the poor little rich people, gee their really hurting we should we help them".

There you have it.......the rich aren't paying their fair share!

1 - The rich pay the majority of all taxes.

2 - ". But Bartlett calculates that, in fact, the top 1% paid a slightly higher tax rate on their diminished income than they had paid on their higher income the year before (27.50% in 2001 to 27.45% in 2000)."

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News