CTH Public Relations

• Torture by CO2HOG [May 02, 2012, 10:19:42 PM]
• China by CO2HOG [March 31, 2012, 02:24:13 PM]
• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40602
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 17
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 16
Total: 16

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

The Top 1% Pay 35%
December 20, 2006; Page A18
Maybe our liberal friends are onto something. They keep saying the rich should pay more taxes, and it turns out the rich already are! That's one of the valuable lessons from the IRS's annual study of income tax data, just released for 2004.

Americans who earned more than $1 million in adjusted gross income paid $178 billion, or an average of $740,000 per filer, in income taxes in 2004. That's up about one-third from 2002, the year before the Bush tax cuts in marginal income-tax and dividend and capital gains rates. The wealthiest 1% of tax filers paid a remarkable 35% of all individual income-tax payments that year.

Yes, we know: Some will claim that this merely shows that the Bush tax cuts made the rich richer. In fact, the Statistics of Income data reveal that there were more Americans filing taxes in every income category from $50,000 and up in 2004. In other words, Americans across income categories were (and are) making more money thanks to the buoyant economy spurred in part by the tax cut.

Here's a way to think of the distribution of current income-tax payments: Imagine a banquet attended by 100 random Americans. If the bill for the meal is distributed like the income tax, the richest person in the room is required to pay one-third of the tab -- or more than all 50 attendees with a below-average income. The three richest people are charged as much as the other 97. And the 30 or so lowest-income people in the room -- those with a family income of $30,000 or less -- pay nothing and eat for free.

This is by any definition a "progressive" tax system. Make that highly progressive. It's true that lower-income workers are also dunned with payroll taxes, but that still doesn't do much to alter the fact that the current tax code really does soak the rich.

The 2004 tax and income statistics also show that reported taxable income rose from 2002 to 2004 despite the cuts in tax rates. Reported taxable income from those in the highest tax bracket rose by 39%; dividend income was up 42%, and income reported from capital gains nearly doubled (up 98%). As for capital gains tax collections, they were roughly 50% higher in 2004 than before the tax cut. Another chestnut of good news is that small business net income surged 24.4% in 2004 from a year earlier. The financial health of these small and often entrepreneurial companies no doubt helps explain the strong job market.

Meanwhile, a separate report that tracks monthly tax collections shows that revenues keep flowing into the Treasury. In the first two months of Fiscal 2007, through November, tax receipts climbed by 9% despite the slowdown in GDP growth. This is on top of the increase in federal tax receipts of nearly 15% in 2005, and another almost 12% in fiscal 2006, which took the federal budget deficit down to 1.8% of GDP -- lower than the average for the last 25 years.

It's true that if the economy hits the skids in 2007, this revenue tidal wave will break. But that's all the more reason to ignore the pleas from our liberal friends to raise taxes. If House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi wants to keep revenues flowing to pay for her priorities, the best thing she can do is leave the lower Bush tax rates alone to soak the rich some more.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116658365804155347.html

 

Wanted: SWM w/ $500,000 LT realized capital loss; seeking SF w/ cap gains. Desires marriage at least long enough to net $100k in tax savings

Taxpayers should demand equal protection and treatment under the 14th Amendment:

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".[1] The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal"[2] by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.

More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means, of course, has been the subject of great debate, and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.

Suspect classes
The Supreme Court has seemed unwilling to extend full "suspect class" status (i.e., status that makes a law that categorizes on that basis suspect, and therefore deserving of greater judicial scrutiny) to groups other than racial minorities and religious groups. In City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985), the Court refused to make the developmentally disabled a suspect class. Many commentators have noted, however—and Justice Marshall so notes in his partial concurrence—that the Court does appear to examine the City of Cleburne's denial of a permit to a group home for mentally retarded people with a significantly higher degree of scrutiny than is typically associated with the rational-basis test.[24]

[edit] Affirmative action
Affirmative action is the policy of consciously setting racial, ethnic, religious, or other kinds of diversity as a goal within an organization. In order to meet this goal, an organization may purposely select people from certain groups that are underrepresented, or have historically been oppressed or denied equal opportunities. In that application of affirmative action, individuals of one or more of these minority backgrounds are preferred—ceteris paribus—over those who do not have such characteristics; such a preferential scheme is sometimes effected through quotas, though this need not necessarily be so.

The Equal Protection Clause and voting
Although the Supreme Court had ruled in Nixon v. Herndon (1927) that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited denial of the vote based on race, the first modern application of the Equal Protection Clause to voting law came in Baker v. Carr (1962), where the Court ruled that the districts that sent representatives to the Tennessee state legislature were so malapportioned (with some legislators representing ten times the number of residents as others) that they violated the Equal Protection Clause. This ruling was extended two years later in Reynolds v. Sims (1964), in which a "one man, one vote" standard was laid down: in both houses of state legislatures, each resident had to be given equal weight in representation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

Tuesday Mar. 10th - Bill Glynn
Financial discrimination

http://www.wtvn.com/podcast/bconyourpc.xml

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/COLUMBUS-OH/WTVN-AM/bill.glynn.mar10.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=COLUMBUS-OH&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=1279&STATION_ID=WTVN-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=BC&PCAST_CAT=Entertainment&PCAST_TITLE=BC_On_Your_PC

http://www.wtvn.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=bconyourpc.xml

[We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money. --Ronald ReaganAl Gore didn't invent the internet, he invented global warmingThe welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants - CamusThe person who advocates government planning of the economy always assumes that it is his plan that will be put into effect. --Hayek]

Two things...1) it is now up to 40% and 2) remember the lamebrain liberals (including one particular lamebrain on this website) who repeatedly claimed that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich?  Look below.  It is a crime that this is the case, so I am not thanking GWB here....I just like to point out, for the 687th time, that if a liberal says so, it's virtually always wrong.



Bottom Line: Taken together, the data in these graphs challenge the rhetoric that the Bush tax cuts were “tax cuts for the rich,” by showing first that there were more Americans, both in total numbers and as a share of the total, who paid no tax after the Bush tax cuts than before. One could even argue that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were actually huge “tax cuts for the poor and middle class” because they helped to increase the number of “non-payers” by more than 14 million Americans between 2000 and 2007. Secondly, the tax burden on “the rich”—the top 1 percent of taxpayers—reached a record high in 2007 of more than 40 percent, and was higher after the Bush tax cuts than before.

http://blog.american.com/?p=7951

You are a total fool if you believe this.

There are only two elements determining the ratio of the total federal INCOME taxes paid by the top 1%.

1. Total Amount of federal income tax paid by the top 1%;
2. Total Amount of federal income taxes paid by the remaining 99%.

The ratio of taxes paid by the top 1% has been rising.

You have to be a fool to think that this indicates that tax rates have been rising for the top 1%.

Look very closely at items 1 and 2 above. See any mention of tax rates? 

If income doubles and tax rates decline by 10% the amount paid in tax still rises significantly.

For example:

You earn $100
Tax rate = 10%   
That's $10 in taxes


Suppose you double your income: $200
Lower the tax rate to 9%
That's $18 in taxes

Your tax went up by $8 but your tax rate was cut by 10%

Understand.

The rich got a big tax cut under Bush.
Their income sky rocketed.
The amount they pay in taxes has gone up as well.

 

Taxes and Voting

Having 121 million Americans completely outside the federal income tax system, it’s like throwing chum to political sharks. These Americans become a natural spending constituency for big-spending politicians. After all, if you have no income tax liability, how much do you care about deficits, how much Congress spends and the level of taxation?
...
Here’s my perhaps politically incorrect question: If one has no financial stake in our country, how much of a say-so should he have in its management?

Having 121 million Americans completely outside the federal income tax system, it’s like throwing chum to political sharks. These Americans become a natural spending constituency for big-spending politicians. After all, if you have no income tax liability, how much do you care about deficits, how much Congress spends and the level of taxation?
...
Here’s my perhaps politically incorrect question: If one has no financial stake in our country, how much of a say-so should he have in its management?


I don't know what political incorrectness is if you think that question is politically incorrect.

But I'm not sure what you're asking. What do you mean by the concept of a "financial stake in our country"?Are you asking:

1. Should representation (a person's vote) be proportional to how he pays in taxes?
2. Should representation be proportional to one's dependence on federal policies?

The wealthy don't have much at stake -- they aren't at risk. They could lose half of their income and wealth and not feel anything.
The poor can't afford such a loss.

The poor are much more vulnerable to changes in federal policies, they have much more at stake--so by this standard, the votes of the rich should count for less.

The wealthy have not suffered a bit under the current conditions. The top 1% have taken home more than 75% of all the gains in income over the last few years. They own 43% of all the wealth in the U.S. The top 80% own only 15% of the wealth.

The wealthy control the media and they don't have any trouble convincing the majority of the electorate to vote for the interests of the wealthy and against their own interests.


I think your pity is entire misplaced.