Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
The bottom 20% are largely below the poverty line. Incidentally, that line is drawn at about $18,600 for a family of four. They're supposed to have a negative tax rate. It almost allows them to purchase food and shelter. Well, food at any rate.
|
I've been doing my best not to use throwaway lines here, but really. Math is hard for Democrats. There is the top 20%. Than there is the next 20% and the next next 20% (the two you previously referenced). For those of you keeping score, the next next next 20% is not the "bottom 20%". But thanks for telling me how little the welfare-recipients earn in this particular non-sequitir.
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
This is below my contempt, let alone comment.
|
It must be pretty bad. You are trying to argue that Bush's tax cuts are bad to the poor relative to the rich, though the rich pay a relatively higher percentage of the nation's taxes now
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
According to the IRS SOI bulletin, the top twenty percent actually saw their effective tax rate, and their share of the total tax burden decrease. I don't know how the CBO comes up with their numbers, but I'll go with the study that I know the methodology of. In any event, if the wealthy (which I keep reminding people includes us) is in fact paying a higher share of the tax burden, so be it. We enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. If we pay a little extra to remain at the top of the heap, think of it as a transaction cost.
|
So you don't want to talk about the chart that Bilmore posted anymore? I'd just as soon we gave away a little less than that we pay a little extra. We already pay too much.
ET remove the most insulting thing you could say to someone in Chicago (er, from Chicago): "Public Schools, right?" FWIW, its just a joke, so please accept it in that spirit.
