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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Srexley who wrote (543468)2/20/2004 9:53:39 PM
From: Nikole Wollerstein  Respond to of 769670
 
There is a nice short article in the last WSJ, one that any dumbas demolib should read
it's name "Trading Places" here is the end:
"...As other countries increase their wealth and education,
the margin for American policy errors shrinks, J Edwards and J. Kerry are posting on the stump as economic patriots, but their abandonment of free trade would only guarantee American weakness."



To: Srexley who wrote (543468)2/20/2004 10:21:42 PM
From: Steve Dietrich  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
<<But I am just a dumb ass that feels sorry for rich people who is bad at math, right? lol>>

Why you have to make this into some emotional thing about loving or hating rich people is your problem not mine.

But yes you do seem to be bad at math.

Let's say our total income for 1 year was $100 and we had a flat tax of 10%.

You say the top 1% pays 36% of the taxes. That means they'd pay $3.60

But you also say the top 1% earns 43% of the income, that is $43.

$3.60 is only 8.4% of $43 dollars. The bottom 99% are paying $6.40 on $57 that's 11.2%.

That means the poor are paying a higher rate than the rich, using your numbers (the top 1% pay 36% of the taxes while earning 43% of the income). That's regressive.

Yet you say, using your own numbers, the rich pay too much. You are saying a regressive tax is too hard on the rich.

Work it out and then get back to me.

Steve Dietrich