Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on September 26, 2000, 09:45:00 PM
-
Well, a 30 hour layover in Sacramento can be a dangerous thing, as you can tell by the number of posts I made today.
One thing that F4UDOA said in the "You might be a Democrat..." topic piqued my interest and I finally had a chance to do a quick check.
F4UDOA: "BTW, I don't where you got the number that the top 1% of the weathly pay 50% of the taxes. It must have been from some Republican propaganda."
I couldn't find the latest numbers (doubt if they are out yet) but I did find this from the '97 Tax Year:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html (http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html)
"According to preliminary data released by the Internal Revenue Service, the top-earning one percent of U.S. taxpayers (annual income over $250,736) made 17.4 percent of the income earned in 1997 and paid 33.2 percent of the total federal individual income taxes collected that year."
Not 50%, but a significant tax bite.
Also, the percentage seems to be increasing.
"This fraction of the tax burden paid by the top one percent--nearly a third of the total--is up from 32.3 percent for tax year 1996 and up from 24.8 percent for tax year 1987 "
As for the other end of the scale:
"At the other end of the income spectrum, the bottom 50 percent of the nation's taxpayers earned only 13.8 percent of all income in 1997, but they paid an even smaller fraction of the federal individual income taxes collected--4.3 percent."
All in all, an interesting article. I'm going to keep looking for newer data.
<edit> The total number of returns in the table is 106,155,000. So, the top 1% number shown is 1,062,000.<edit>
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-26-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 09-26-2000).]
-
That leaves my tax bracket to absorbe 62.5% (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
BTW.. those numbers have changed drastically since 97. I'm sure of it.
AKDejaVu
-
I know I don't pay enough in taxes. I'm glad Clinton had the wisdom to veto the lifting of the marriage penalty. I'd feel really guilty if I only had to pay the same amount of tax as when I wasn't married. I think they should also impose a heavy federal tax on dog ownership so I can even do more to have the government distribute my money to the deserving.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
-
Marriage penalty?
Well.
Hm.
<snicker>
<giggle>
I thought the punishment was the marriage itself?
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Marriage penalty?
Well.
Hm.
<snicker>
<giggle>
I thought the punishment was the marriage itself?
StSanta,
In some cases it is but our benevolent government has found a way to punish us even more! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
Mav
-
You guys got it all wrong.
It isn't a marriage "penality" at all....
The Marriage Tax Increase is actually a "sin tax" originally designed to save us all from harmful behavior.
Marriage, by many accounts of divorced men I know, is not a emotionally healthy thing, yet it seems to be habit-forming. Indeed, over 90% of all Americans try it at least once. And, many people talk of the "emotional high" it gives you, soon followed by a "low" Addiction? You better believe it!
In an attempt to limit the demand for marriage, the Government raised the price by taxing it. Unfortunately, this "Marriage Sin Tax" seems to not have reduced the incidence of marriage on our society at all. In fact, it only increases the financial burden of those suffering most from "Marriage Addiction".
Indeed, Marriage is running rampant in American society like never before. Once upon a time, most people who tried it, never got Married a second time. Nowadays, many more people get Married once, then try to quit, but end up getting Married again. It's a bitter cycle, good for nobody.
The solution to the Marrige Addiction of society is not increasing the tax burden of those harmed by it. Nor do we need more Marriage Laws which make it easier to obtain a Marrige, such as the much-talked about "common law marriage".
On the flip side, though, banning Marrage outright won't stop it, either. Churches, known for their protections from the Government, are common providers of Marriage. Indeed, making Marriage a criminal act will ensure that only criminals get Married.
What is the solution to Marriage?
The Republicans feel that enforcement of existing laws should keep things in check. In addition, tough "3 strikes and you're out" laws--namely, preventing repeat offenders from ever recieving a marrige again--are also popular among Republicans.
Democrats, on the other hand, feel that a multi-billion dollar Marriage Commission must be set up (funded in part by the marriage sin tax), headed by a "Marrige Czar". In addition, proper counseling and rehabilitation is a high priority. Finally, the Democrats feel that all Elementary schools should require "Marriage Education" before students are premitted to advance beyond 4th grade.
Unfortunately, as usual, the Democratic president vetoed the Republican plan, so nothing is being done about the problem and the ineffuctual Marriage Sin Tax remains our only deterrent to Marriage. 90-some percent of Americans still get Married, often more than once. As usual, the Government can't do a thing.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
J_A_B
[This message has been edited by J_A_B (edited 09-27-2000).]
-
I like the marriage penalty. It makes it cheaper to just live together.
Err.. that is.. I WOULD like it... if I weren't already married.
AKDejaVu