Not really proof. Good try though, I admire your thought of what is proof. But without extensive reasearch and footnotes, it is no more valid than what I stated in a less time consuming and believable form.

:har:

Answer any of the questions factually and you have all the proof you need that what you wrote was false.
Its incredible that you would attempt to maintain that your obvious lies were true, unless of course your "American" knowledge of your countries history is so bad that you can't even understand the basics.

Why do we want to bring people, any people, down when it is in everyones interest to bring them up? Is it because it is easier for politicians to promote class warfare than to get out of the way and stop spending money?

Why are you unable to answer any of the points?
Is it because you know you were making up rubbish?
The real funny part is that you took one of the biggest federal expenses which itself was a social provision and ridiculously claimed it didn't occur.

That local education you got must be real bad:rotfl2:
Might I suggest you delete your posts and claim that you are being persecuted for holding an unpopular view.........its all the rage so I hear

Well it doesn't have to be 100% current. We're talking about general, macroeconomic trends over time, so no biggie. I don't totally share your lack of faith in the concept of Reaganomics; it never really was was it really was supposed to be, but for the time being let's look at this chart.

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/...axes_graph.gif

I think you already know that you're right about that. IIRC the top 10% account for an inordinate share of the total tax base, and the top 1% are to they as they are to us, but there are more factors at work. Inflation rates, federal expenditures, unfriendly business legislation (we could always pull out The Federal Registrar and see how many tens of thousands of pages were added to that), changes in trade policy, etc. All of that affects the GDP, and government spending, whether the money is there or not, affects it directly as it's part of the calculation. So while there may be a vague correlation, I'd agree that it isn't the only factor, although I suspect we'll differ in opinion upon exactly what is and is not a major factor and why.

Also, something is bugging me about that graph. It shows everyone as paying positive percentiles of income in taxes. While I have no doubt that taxation in total costs everyone, it doesn't cost everyone in the listed categories. There should be some negative taxes in there for the bottom 20%, maybe more. If the graph is based on taxes witheld it would, when cross-referenced with tax burden per bracket, distort the burden borne by about a third of the population. This in turn further renders the aforementioned correlation inaccurate because a greater portion is being paid by the middle and upper income levels with the middle class being responsible for a significant portion of economic demand, especially in a service economy. Most perturbatory.

For the moment, I'm going to check the boards once more before I go to sleep, but I'll pick up on this tommorrow and maybe add some graphs. There's a really good site that allows you to customize and overlay graphs with virtually every type of US economic data you can imagine, but for the life of me I can't find it right now.

Post as mantyn graphs as you wish. People who work are just tired of those who don't. And the politicians who think that is alright. Including the Mr. vacation guy in the White House, Barack Obama.

Or post any graph you so may wish.
Though in your case I would suggest against using any graph supplied from the US govt as they would show that you are lying.
I might also suggest against showing legislation relating to the taxation system of the US federal govt.....but they would also show that you are lying.
I might suggest linking to the US constitution....but that would show that you are lying
The Dept of defense might come to your aid with your claims....if what you said was true instead of false.
Budget office...yous a liar
schools and colleges....yous aliar
library of congress.....yous a liar
Third man.........................yous are shown by your own words, please forgive this dumb mick for pointing it out that your "American history" is really detatched from American history as I am sure that a foriegner pointing out the basic lack of knowledge on your part must really chafe in the under regions.
So .......................
sorry I meant .........................(edited by)

That chart is meaningless.

That is the top RATE, but says nothing at all about what those top earners actually PAID as a rate.

Back in the old days, the rates were very high—but no one actually paid them. That's the secret you forget. When the top marginal rates dropped, the DODGES also dropped. Look at AMT, now, for example.

You post stuff like that, and people who don;t know better think that the rich got some huge tax cut when the marginal rates dropped. they did not. You can see the amount paid by quintile, and it actually has tended UP over time for the top quintile.

Look at John Kerry. The year he ran for president, his effective tax rate was 15% (taxes/income). His marginal rate was 39%. So back in the day, your marginal rate might be 70%, but your effective rate was probably 20-something %. Some family that only makes 500k a year has a marginal rate of 38%, but their effective rate is likely in the high 20s or low 30s.

Using charts like that might imply, for example, that the poor pay a 14% rate. They in fact pay NEGATIVE taxes. Their effective rate turns out to be below zero. What matters is taxes COLLECTED.

Bottom line is that the only people who deserve tax cuts are people who actually PAY. Within that, the people most deserving of cuts are those who pay MORE, specifically those who already subsidize others. Anyone not at least pulling their weight never deserves a cut, IMO.

Well done, its only muppets that pay big tax.
Or arrogant muppets that get caught thinking they are above income tax.
Top earners pay bugger all income tax, thats the way it works. Switch tax to tarrifs and the top spenders who in theory should be picking up the tax bill will financesmuggling and so not only avoid the taxesn they are due but also benefit from business with every other bugger who thinks things are too much.
Income tax originaly only hit the biggest earners, they avoided paying.
Other people were brought into income tax, they picked up the bill of those that avoided paying.
Chasing people who avoided paying meant more expense which means more revenue is needed to chase those who have to pay who didn't used to have to pay.
Its a self feeding cycle.

What you're describing is effective tax rate. It follows much the same pattern. The data is not meaningless and you don't get to discount data without providing your own. :) :

http://www.epi.org/page/-/img/040710-snapshot-final.jpg

http://www.econdataus.com/effind05.jpg

And seeing as that incomes for top earners have grown exponentially over those of everyone else, asking them to pay more is only fair.

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/6-25-10inc-f1.jpg

I said it was the effective tax rate.

What are the "top 400 families?" Is it actually just 400 households making a gazillion bucks a year?

One, they are not statistically meaningful---though they likely pay far more taxes than is a fair share---effective rate is silly, really, it's total dollars paid in, it's not like if you make a billion a year you use more services than someone who makes 100k a year, after all.

Two, the second chart seems wrong, and I have no idea what the source actually is. MY effective tax rate is far higher than those listed (it's on the tax report I get from the accountant every year). More like 28% or more. Maybe if we cheated on our taxes like Obama cabinet members we'd pay less, I dunno.

Ah, I see, that's just income tax. Throw FICA in there. CBO charts consistently show "all federal taxes" having an effective rate in the high 20s to low 30s as income level rises to the top 1%.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5746&type=0&sequence=1

for the top 20%, the current effective rate is 27.1%. For the top 1% it is 31.2%. This is TAXES ACTUALLY COLLECTED. So that is after all the dodges, the average, effective rate for the top 1% is 31.2% of income.

They pay FAR more. More as a %, and more in terms of shares. The cost of running government has exactly nothing to do with the amount of money earned by people. The cost of government should be a fixed expense, roughly scaled to population.

I pay rather a lot of taxes. I use, lesse, roads, and my family's share of "freedom" as secured by our military (4 shares).

So, I use the roads as much as any other father of 2 with a wife, and I use 4 shares of the military... why should I pay 15 shares of tax, exactly? Why is that more fair than only paying 14 shares of tax for our family of 4?

Why should someone paying less than 1 share EVER get a tax break?



[IMG]Other people were brought into income tax, they picked up the bill of those that avoided paying.[/IMG]

No, the government spent more and more. At this point, it's not like anyone "not rich" is picking up the US tab, tax rates could be zero for all byut the top 20%, and revenue would barely change.

Open a History book. Might help ya some.