I believe you are questioning one of my definitions, not one of my facts.
Tom Send a noteboard - 14/04/2011 04:36:35 PM
You seem to think that the top 5% are all rich. While $170,000 (roughly) in income may be comfortable in some parts of the country, in most metropolitan areas it is not and in no case are people making that amount "rich".
The top 1% of Americans are those who make around $400,000 annually or more. Somewhere around that point, one could arguably say that a person is "rich".
However, regardless of that fact, there is a law of diminishing returns if marginal rates are increased on increments of income above the top current marginal rate. While it is possible to generate additional revenue, this revenue is going to be insufficient to balance the budget even if radical cuts are made on the spending side.
The top 1% of Americans are those who make around $400,000 annually or more. Somewhere around that point, one could arguably say that a person is "rich".
However, regardless of that fact, there is a law of diminishing returns if marginal rates are increased on increments of income above the top current marginal rate. While it is possible to generate additional revenue, this revenue is going to be insufficient to balance the budget even if radical cuts are made on the spending side.
Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
How can anyone seriously support Obama's budget proposals?
- 14/04/2011 02:49:30 PM
1233 Views
I agree with your overall point but I do question one of your facts
- 14/04/2011 03:25:25 PM
700 Views
Using IRS data for 2008: (most recent year for which data is available)
- 14/04/2011 03:45:20 PM
727 Views
You didn't interpret the spreadsheet correctly. I'm positive of that.
- 14/04/2011 06:08:39 PM
589 Views
I'm gonna have to jump on board the wagon with that being a bad figure, got some others
- 14/04/2011 07:33:14 PM
776 Views
Data: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in31mt.xls *NM*
- 14/04/2011 08:32:42 PM
288 Views
That's a breakdown of who modifies their returns and how it affects revenue.
- 14/04/2011 09:15:21 PM
548 Views
*NM*
I believe you are questioning one of my definitions, not one of my facts.
- 14/04/2011 04:36:35 PM
643 Views
No matter how you define it I think it would be hard to call the top 5% middle class
- 14/04/2011 05:03:33 PM
658 Views
What a load of crap!
- 14/04/2011 03:49:29 PM
772 Views
Yes, your response is a load of crap.
- 14/04/2011 04:55:20 PM
727 Views
Re: Yes, your response is a load of crap.
- 14/04/2011 05:13:14 PM
783 Views
This is our first war without a tax increase.
- 14/04/2011 06:05:43 PM
700 Views
Er, check facts
- 14/04/2011 05:04:02 PM
845 Views
Yeah, lets fact check
- 14/04/2011 05:43:34 PM
707 Views
You understand you're actually supposed to cite data for a fact check right?
- 14/04/2011 06:38:22 PM
851 Views
I'm not sure thats entirely right
- 14/04/2011 05:51:18 PM
945 Views
What about the farm subsidies and the military?
- 15/04/2011 04:54:54 PM
636 Views
Cutting the military isn't enough
- 16/04/2011 04:27:11 AM
616 Views
Defense is 60% of the discretionary budget as well, so it's more like 26% overall. Just sayin'. *NM*
- 16/04/2011 04:53:30 AM
296 Views