I'll have to let Merlin get involved with this since I'll be out for a few days.

Raytri, what your income will get you is ZERO in college tuition tax credits - no matter how many kids you have in college. Betcha didn't know that.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

I think part of it is the reality of capitalist society. I think it is the fault of the right and the left wing. The left wing in its attempts to shift the tax burden to rich have create a complex tax system that does the reverse. Most of the rich can afford lawyers to manuver tax laws and help gain benefits. The rest of society can't benefit for ever changing tax vofd and actually have to pay a good amount of money to get their taxes done. The right-wing cut taxes like it doesn't effect anyone when in reality society faces a trade off: cutting taxes is good for the economy but in increase inequality and vice-versa. Many regeanomic support point to the laffer curves and say that cutting taxes increasing govt revenue but what they fail to point out is that cutting taxes excessively damages the govt and economy in the long run. Flat tax is the way to go without so many string attach that at the end benefit the rich the most.

__________________
Formally Htown Boliviano

I've suspected as much. Which is why one of the things we're going to be doing with my wife's income is chunking an ungodly amount of money into our kids' 529 plans and our own 401(k)s. Not only does that save money for college and retirement -- it reduces our taxable gross income, possibly letting us both avoid AMT and qualify for various tax credits.

Luckily my kids are three years apart, so assuming I can frog-march them through college in four years we'll only have one year where we're paying for two of them.

__________________
Man up.

Of course, the oldest might take a year or two off, and you could decide to adopt twins 2 years younger than your baby. You never know.

I'm holding onto the fact that at midyear, two of mine will "finish" and I will be 3/4 done. "Only" two more years of sinking in the quicksand before I can start digging myself out.

I'll have to get back to the class warfare next week.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

did the off-topic police take the nite off?

__________________
“Mayor Palin fails to have a firm grasp of something very simple: the truth.”

[Frontiersman editorial, 2/7/97]

At one time, within my memory, the top bracket was 90%....now it is 36%.

Here's my biggest complaint. The US government spends money like it was someone quite rich. The computer equipment is modern, the buildings are well equipped, and the bureaucratic staff are well paid. You can walk through Washington DC, and see how fugal and/or how extravagant our government spends money. Most people would agree bureaucrats and elected officials don't pinch pennies.

That would lead me to conclude that people in America who live in that style (and above) should pay most of the taxes, right? It seems a crime to tax someone who is trying to live on $15,000 - $20,000 per year. These people don't have money to buy new clothes or a good cut of meat. They may not be poverty, but they darn well are poor.

Yet, at the same time, by manipulating the income tax code some people can bring home after tax dollars in the 10's of millions of dollars. That is not a fair and equitable society. I don't care if your name is Mr. Google or Mr. Wal-Mart, hard work and enterprise alone did not make you rich. Nope. You got rich because this is America. Our laws, our infrastructure, our whole country is fertile ground to make the select, hard-working, and lucky people few very rich. And the people who are in the upper 5% of the income bracket should be paying most of the taxes.

They got rich because they live in America. In essence, every American participated in helping them climb the ladder of success. As such, they owe it to all Americans to pick up the tab for the party.

The rest of us will be happy to throw in money to cover the tip. If you prosper because you are an American, then you should pay for our government. And let the poor keep the chump change they bring home from working their 8 hour days.

__________________
Hobo
Charter member of 'Republicans Who Hate Bush" Club

They also don't pay federal income tax.


According to the latest stats available at irs.gov for the year 2003, the top 5% had an income share of 32.53% and a tax share of 53.52%.

You must mean the bottom 75% or so who pay a 16.55% share of federal taxes.

Sorry I can't take the time to look for more current stats.

__________________
Do you know what it's like to fall in the mud and get kicked... in the head... with an iron boot? Of course you don't, no one does. It never happens. It's a dumb question... skip it.

You're getting your data from the Tax Foundation, aren't you?

Even taking their analysis at face value, if you factor in the IRS estimate that it only captures 70% of nonwage income, then the income share for the wealthy should be adjusted upward to about 46.5%, since they have the vast majority of nonwage income. At that point you're getting pretty close to a flat tax.

And, as always, that analysis ignores payroll taxes, property taxes and sales taxes, all of which hit the less affluent (as a percentage of income) far more heavily than they do the rich.

__________________
Man up.

Oh, I see... it's a spectrum. So what then is the optimum balance of income distribution on this spectrum? Exactly how wide should the "gap" between rich and poor be? And once decided: How do you suggest we achieve this happy medium? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure government involvement is going to be part of any solution proposed.

So... government involvement to make things more equitable. How is this different from the "state-ordered equality" you disapproved of above? A difference of degrees perhaps? As long as the government doesn't insist on complete income equality, it's okay then?

I said it isn't so much people getting poor as others getting rich. Even if we take the NY Times article at face value (never a good idea), income for the bottom 90% dropped only 0.6% (hardly a significant amount), while total income increased 9%. How does this not support my point?

Not quite true.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...l=chi-site-nav

Well, I suppose we could set up a government committee - let's call it the People's Board of Wealth Worthiness - to decide who deserves their wealth and who doesn't. Every citizen who doesn't appear deserving enough will have their wealth seized and redistributed among the masses (and then maybe they'll be taken out and shot, so the state can harvest their undeserved organs as well... just kidding). Though, I wonder what such a policy (arbitrary wealth seizure) would do to "minor" concerns like productivity, employment, incentive, standard of living, etc...?

I would like to ask again: Are we now to judge wealth (or lack thereof) by what others have, rather than what we ourselves have? Because it seems to me that this question is at the heart of all this newly found concern with income inequality.

Google has it as 45.72 centimeters (18 inches) and I'm sticking to that. (Otherwise, I'll have to dismantle my ark and start over... )

__________________
One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings. --Diogenes

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/ie3.html

Notice the trends. Also, it hasn't changed significantly in the last several years despite two tax cuts. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf In fact, the biggest year over year change? From 1992 to 1993 when the lowest 5th saw share drop .2%, second lowest .4%, 3rd .7%, and 4th .7%. While highest 5th went up 2% and top 5% went up 2.4%. Now what significant event happened in 1993? Clinton raised income taxes.

Also note that the poverty rate, although up since the recession, is still much lower than its 1994 peak.

The income gap is a reflection of two things. One would be the stock market boom, which as mentioned in the original post on this thread, has resulted in higher incomes for the wealthy. So remind me, why do we want to penalize the rich simply because they're successful at investing? Another reason is the fact that the US has been slowly turning from a manufacturing economy (unskilled labor) to a service economy (skilled labor). So yes, the incomes of skilled workers has increased substantially versus that of unskilled workers. As it should be. Or is this somehow a bad thing? Should we be rewarding the unskilled more than the skilled?

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.