Statistics-Just for the Record.

**Ya_know** · April 2nd, 2004, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by NooNoo

Techs you may wish to look at the UK economy of before and after effects.

Before the rich paid 70-95% tax on income.
It was cut to just 40% flat rate

What happened over the next 15 years?

Let me be sure I understand you...You mean that the rich paid 70 to 95% of the countries taxes, not that they paid 70-95% of their earnings...right? Guad I hope so!!! Otherwise, it sure wouldn't pay to be rich, no pardon of the pun!

**meatwad** · April 2nd, 2004, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by NooNoo

Techs you may wish to look at the UK economy of before and after effects.

Before the rich paid 70-95% tax on income.
It was cut to just 40% flat rate

What happened over the next 15 years?

95% income tax eh? Seems like it would be easy to make more money by making less money.

**Ya_know** · April 2nd, 2004, 03:05 PM

Oh, and remember, I live under a rock, tell me what happened over the 15 years?

**ilovetheusers** · April 2nd, 2004, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by meatwad

95% income tax eh? Seems like it would be easy to make more money by making less money.

Probably, everything you have company owned instead of privatly to avoid shelling out all of your $$$ to the government.

**techs** · April 2nd, 2004, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by NooNoo

Techs you may wish to look at the UK economy of before and after effects.

Before the rich paid 70-95% tax on income.
It was cut to just 40% flat rate

What happened over the next 15 years?

Yes things got much better when Great Britain lowered it to 40%. However before the Bush tax cuts the richest paid about 38 percent in America. Now it is about 31 percent.
ILOVETHEUSERS-I haven't had time to reply to you yet.
But in regards to WHOMEVER we borrowed the money be it China, Japan, the Social Security trust fund we have to pay it back.
As to some amount of money being given back to stimulate the economy I agree. Its that this was by far the largest economic "stimulus"(originally it wasn't a stimulus it was a tax rebate of a projected surplus) and the most heavily weighted towards the richest Americans. If this money had been given to the middle and lower classes we could have spent our way to prosperity. The money did not go to people who used it to create jobs.

**JaxSon** · April 2nd, 2004, 03:44 PM

Statement by Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Chairman Governor Marc Racicot

"Today's jobs report is evidence that the President's pro-growth policies are working, but there is still more to be done to ensure that every American who wants a job can find one. The President has laid out a six point plan to continue to grow the economy and create jobs.

John Kerry's pessimism about America's growing economy won’t create a single job, and his decades-long support for higher taxes, increased regulation and more government spending would derail our economic recovery."

President Bush's Six Point Plan for Strengthening the Economy

**jitBob** · April 2nd, 2004, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by JaxSon

Statement by Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Chairman Governor Marc Racicot

President Bush's Six Point Plan for Strengthening the Economy

I don't believe him.

**JaxSon** · April 2nd, 2004, 03:58 PM

That just shows the difference between you and me. I do believe him to be an honest man who will truly try to do the things he says he will do.

I do not believe he is an evil liar with ulterior motives. If he was truly the bad person you people believe him to be, don't you think he would have planted some evidence of WMDs just to make himself look good? Just the fact that they are honest enough to admit they haven't found them yet should tell you something about the man and the people around him.

**Ya_know** · April 2nd, 2004, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by techs

The money did not go to people who used it to create jobs.

How do you figure this???

**NooNoo** · April 2nd, 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Ya_know

Let me be sure I understand you...You mean that the rich paid 70 to 95% of the countries taxes, not that they paid 70-95% of their earnings...right? Guad I hope so!!! Otherwise, it sure wouldn't pay to be rich, no pardon of the pun!

no I meant 70-95% of ALL earnings went to the government in taxes. Income tax rate 95% leaving only 5% of the earnings for the person who earned the money to spend.

**ilovetheusers** · April 2nd, 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by techs

Yes things got much better when Great Britain lowered it to 40%. However before the Bush tax cuts the richest paid about 38 percent in America. Now it is about 31 percent.

Way off, way off. The tax rate on the rich is about 35% income tax. The toatal the top 10% wage earners pay into the federal budget is about 2 thirds (66%) and if you take the top 50% or the population that's 90% of total tax revenue. So, the poorest 50% of the population account for only 10% of total taxes collected.

This chart shows the poor 50% only pay 5%
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1415.cfm

http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst012003.htm

**ilovetheusers** · April 2nd, 2004, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by NooNoo

no I meant 70-95% of ALL earnings went to the government in taxes. Income tax rate 95% leaving only 5% of the earnings for the person who earned the money to spend.

No wonder all the rich folk moved to America and elsewhere. Took thier ball and ran so to speak.

**cisco2** · April 2nd, 2004, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Ya_know

How do you figure this???

All of that money is buried in jars in the back yards of the oppressive wealthy. Thus ensuring it can't possibly be put into circulation, further ensuring the poverty and subjugation of the common worker.

Maybe we should dig all that money up and give it to the poor people! That would solve poverty forever! Down with the rich! Who do these people think they are coming to America to be rich and prosperous? Land of opportunity? Fiddlsticks, this should be the land of free handouts, increase the taxes on the wealthy to fund more welfare and government programs for the lazy, the indigent, and all the ugly people who need to be discovered by Extreme Makeover!

**techs** · April 2nd, 2004, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Ya_know

How do you figure this???

Because they didn't create jobs.
I own a business. I am not going to expand unless there is more demand for my product. How is giving money to people who invest it create jobs? You would think it would. BUT no one builds factories and hires workers unless there is is demand for their product. There is no shortage of investment money. Interest rates are next to zero but no one is borrowing to expand because there is no demand. If the money that went to the richest (who invested it) went to those with immediate and short term needs (clothes, cars, education) it would have been spent boosting demand which would spur job growth.
Now I don't think Bush is evil. I do think he is intellectually overmatched. I think his staff(read Cheney) actually make policy. I think he thinks what he is doing is the right thing. I think it is not.
I just glanced at the Bush 6 point plan. Just looking at number one gives me pause. He says he is going to allow small businesses to join together to purchase health insurance. I used to work in health insurance. They already have that right. Expand medical savings accounts to give workers more control over their health care? What is that? Who really has the money to put away for health care? And lastly he is going to reduce frivolous lawsuits. But that is not what he tried to do recently. Before it was voted down in the Congress he wanted to put a cap on damages. Not on frivolous lawsuits. And one persons "frivolous" lawsuit is anothers only recourse against incompetant care. BTW almost no doctors lose their licenses because of their state offices of medical oversight. Doctors who have killed patients have gotten 6 month suspended license revocations.
You know we had one good month of employment after 37 bad ones. I don't think the jobs problem is solved yet.

**techs** · April 2nd, 2004, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by ilovetheusers

Way off, way off. The tax rate on the rich is about 35% income tax. The toatal the top 10% wage earners pay into the federal budget is about 2 thirds (66%) and if you take the top 50% or the population that's 90% of total tax revenue. So, the poorest 50% of the population account for only 10% of total taxes collected.

This chart shows the poor 50% only pay 5%
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1415.cfm

http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst012003.htm

I think you misunderstood. The highest tax rate is now about 31 percent. It used to be about 38 percent. You are talking about the percentage of Federal Income tax revenue that is paid by what percent of people in what income bracket.
BTW I take great exception to the figures that say the lower class doesn't pay taxes.
Take a person who makes minimum wage. He pays fed tax on his telephone, gas, cable tv, etc, etc. There are all kinds of Federal taxes that he pays. And that is not a "progressive" (you make more, you pay more) but a 'regresssive" tax(everyone pays the same regardless of income). He also pays local sales tax, property tax etc.