On the 47% who don't pay taxes

[One Brow]

I started from this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Income_at_a_glance

I broke down income ranes into bottom, Lower-middle, middle, and upper-middle 20 percent, plus a range for 80-95, 95-99, and 99+. I made the assumpitons that the income graph was roughly linear within each range. I had the top range top out at $10,000,000.

The bottom 20% earns 1.65% of US income.
The lower-middle 20% earns 4.76% of US income.
The middle 20% earns 8.01% of US income.
The upper-middle 20% earns 13.08% of US income.
The 80-95 range earns 17.28% of US income.
The 95-99 range earns 9.20% of US income.
The 99+ range earns 46.03% of US income.



I re-ran the numbers with the top range topping out at 5,000,000 (I don't thihnk you could make a good argument for it being lower).

The bottom 20% earns 2.12% of US income.
The lower-middle 20% earns 6.12% of US income.
The middle 20% earns 10.30% of US income.
The upper-middle 20% earns 16.82% of US income.
The 80-95 range earns 22.22% of US income.
The 95-99 range earns 11.83% of US income.
The 99+ range earns 30.60% of US income.


So, even by the most generous estimate, the bottom 47% is earning 13% of US income, spread out over half the households. Whatever other ways there my be to improve the deficit, it won't come by taxing these people.

 

[cowhide]

Nice work. I certainly think the rich use the fact that 47% don't pay taxes as an excuse to what the problem really is that the Tax system benefits the rich and when it doesn't then they buy politicians to change the laws to continue the "loophole" that allow them to keep the majority of money.

 

[LogGrad98]

Does being in the upper 20% make one evil or somehow less of a person than being in the other 80%? Because that certainly seems to commonly be the tone.

Also why is it a terrible thing for people to want to actually keep what they have earned?

 

[Stoked]

Does being in the upper 20% make one evil or somehow less of a person than being in the other 80%? Because that certainly seems to commonly be the tone.

Also why is it a terrible thing for people to want to actually keep what they have earned?

Between taxes, insurance and all that I take home 51% of each check. Not sure what it comes out to after I file taxes but I take a heavy hit every pay day.

 

[franklin]

Between tax liens, child support for three baby momma's, and payments on my felony convictions, all that I take home 51% of each check.

We could just lock you up.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Does being in the upper 20% make one evil or somehow less of a person than being in the other 80%? Because that certainly seems to commonly be the tone.

Also why is it a terrible thing for people to want to actually keep what they have earned?

I don't think Warren Buffet is hated by too many people.

 

[One Brow]

Does being in the upper 20% make one evil or somehow less of a person than being in the other 80%? Because that certainly seems to commonly be the tone.

Also why is it a terrible thing for people to want to actually keep what they have earned?

Does being in the lower 20% make one lazy or somehow less of a citizen than being in the other 80%? Because that certainly seems to commonly be the tone.

Also why is it a terrible thing for people to want to pay for the societal infrastructure supporting their earning potential?

 

[Stoked]

We could just lock you up.

I have diplomatic immunity. But child support is a $#^&@

 

[franklin]

Does being in the lower 20% make one lazy or somehow less of a citizen than being in the other 80%? Because that certainly seems to commonly be the tone.

Well, no per se. I suppose they could have had incredibly bad misfortune. Otherwise yeah, you're probably right about the lazy thing. Either that or they're young or old, and wouldn't be expected to be in their earning prime.

Also why is it a terrible thing for people to want to pay for the societal infrastructure supporting their earning potential?

LOL. It's funny how you frame these things skewed to useless oblivion.

Do you really want to go line for line over Obama's White House budget release and see where the increases that need to be paid for are? Because the first thing I'm going to point out is the greatest increase in military spending of any president ever. Then we'll move on to his endless unemployment benefits. Making this sound like roads and bridges is as dumb as KOC Begone and that stupid crush on Elizabeth "I can't answer a question" Warren.

 

[NUMBERICA]

It's cool guys, the government has no bills to pay. And the people with the least will continue to bankroll investors trips to the casino. We got this.

Being wealthy sounds awful.

 

[TroutBum]

It's cool guys, the government has no bills to pay. And the people with the least will continue to bankroll investors trips to the casino. We got this.

Being wealthy sounds awful.

I've been both wealthy and poor, and trust me, being poor sucks.

 

[LogGrad98]

Does being in the lower 20% make one lazy or somehow less of a citizen than being in the other 80%? Because that certainly seems to commonly be the tone.

Also why is it a terrible thing for people to want to pay for the societal infrastructure supporting their earning potential?

I didn't take that tone, but cowhide certainly did about "the rich". You want to rephrase with no basis to avoid giving a real answer, feel free.

 

[BluesRocker]

Lets just see where this is all going. I dont see anything wrong with not paying our bills. We'll just file BK on the world.

And we got the most biggest guns ever here. We'll just rob the rest of the world if we have to.

Let me explain something to you jack asses. All a country needs to survive is a super wealthy 1%. Thats why we are bankrupting the middle class. We dont need them. And once all the decent paying jobs have been outsourced then we can put everybody on food stamps or unemployment. And this will be a jobless paradise. I dont want to work anymore. Do you?

And obviously the money to fund our super world dominating terrorists *** stomping army will come from printing more money. This is simple economics. Vote Romney 2012

 

[franklin]

Thats why we are bankrupting the middle class. We dont need them.

I think you have to have class to be middle class?
My bankroll is growing. What's your excuses?

 

[WhiteMamba]

We didn't even have an income tax until 1913. Reduce spending and cut taxes.

 

[BluesRocker]

I think you have to have class to be middle class?
My bankroll is growing. What's your excuses?

Ya Im sure you're mega rich. Care tell all of us what you do for a living?

You sound like a drug dealer.

Hey everybody Franklin is rich, he can pay for all the wars. No need to worry.

He's a man class.

What I really believe is that you are lying?

 

[One Brow]

I didn't take that tone, but cowhide certainly did about "the rich". You want to rephrase with no basis to avoid giving a real answer, feel free.

That you read notions like "evil", "less of a person", or "terrible" into cowhide's remarks says quite a bit more about your position than it does about cowhide's. Becasue the connection was so meager, I was completely unaware that you intrended that as a specifric response, and instead though you were crafting a general response.

So, I would say my rephrase had the same level of (no) basis that your original phrasing contained. It just took the liberal rephrasing for you to see that the conservative prhasing was basically empty and meaningless. You know, because you're such an independent.

 

[One Brow]

I think you have to have class to be middle class?
My bankroll is growing. What's your excuses?

Yet, you would agree, not the current middle class as a whole is going bankrupt, but that the numbers in the middle class is shrinking as a percentage of the population, right? If so, even if the post is poorly phrased, you agree with what one I suspect the poster meant.

 

[One Brow]

Well, no per se. I suppose they could have had incredibly bad misfortune. Otherwise yeah, you're probably right about the lazy thing. Either that or they're young or old, and wouldn't be expected to be in their earning prime.

Or mentally disturbed. Or suffered a debilitatiing illness early in their life. Or being severly disfigured. Or stayed home ot raise the their children, and then found themselves widoweded/divorced without adequate resources. Or found themselves on the wrong street corner on the wrong day with the wrong skin color, and are now limited by a criminal history. Or living in the remote Applachian mountains or various small towns. Other than that, and probagbly a dozen other things if I really thought hard about it. It[s probagbly better just to say "lazy", then you won't have to cogitate on the remarkable amount of luck that goes into being a self-made man.

LOL. It's funny how you frame these things skewed to useless oblivion.

I was matching a uselessly skewed frame with a uselessly skewed frame. Thank you for noticing.

Do you really want to go line for line over Obama's White House budget release and see where the increases that need to be paid for are? Because the first thing I'm going to point out is the greatest increase in military spending of any president ever. Then we'll move on to his endless unemployment benefits. Making this sound like roads and bridges is as dumb as KOC Begone and that stupid crush on Elizabeth "I can't answer a question" Warren.

While I'm curious what questions you think Warren refuses to answer (and offer no judgement on that statement's accuracy without more details), I agree with you on the budget.

 

[LogGrad98]

That you read notions like "evil", "less of a person", or "terrible" into cowhide's remarks says quite a bit more about your position than it does about cowhide's. Becasue the connection was so meager, I was completely unaware that you intrended that as a specifric response, and instead though you were crafting a general response.

So, I would say my rephrase had the same level of (no) basis that your original phrasing contained. It just took the liberal rephrasing for you to see that the conservative prhasing was basically empty and meaningless. You know, because you're such an independent.

So you still didn't answer the question, which says a lot about your position. But you did a fine job of setting up a thinly veiled ad hominem.

Interesting how many people around here think that to be independent you always have to show zero leaning, or at least are required to lean left on every single topic.

And if you really read cows post as being completely neutral and unbiased, it shows just how deep your own biases run.