The Reaganomics Fraud:

[75th]

ololoololololololol

Not surprising, but a bit disappointing. I think it's safe to say the only reason you dont go back and edit your post (the one where YOU brought up property taxes and the like) is because I've quoted it already.

Like I said - I dont blame you. It's a bitch when someone presents you with facts and all you have in your arsenal is unsubstantiated claims.

 

[mrplunkey]

ololoololololololol

Not surprising, but a bit disappointing. I think it's safe to say the only reason you dont go back and edit your post (the one where YOU brought up property taxes and the like) is because I've quoted it already.

Like I said - I dont blame you. It's a bitch when someone presents you with facts and all you have in your arsenal is unsubstantiated claims.

ololololol's won't help you here.

What part of "state taxes are graduated" did you not understand? Is there really ambiguity in that statement?

 

[75th]

Also keep in mind that those numbers dont include state taxes. When you factor in local income, sales, and property taxes, the middle class gets boned even futher - state taxes are much more regressive than federal taxes.

That's not true at all. Property taxes go up with property value. If a top earner doesn't want a high-end piece of real estate, there's no reason they should pay higher taxes.

And the same can be said for sales taxes.

The average state and local tax rate on the best-off one percent of families is 6.4 percent
before accounting for the tax savings from federal itemized deductions for state and local
taxes. After accounting for this tax savings — an effect commonly referred to as the “federal
offset” — the effective tax rate on the top one percent is a mere 5.2 percent.

The average tax rate on families in the middle 20 percent of the income spectrum is 9.7
percent before the federal offset and 9.4 percent after — almost twice the effective rate that
the richest people pay.

The average tax rate on the poorest 20 percent of families is the highest of all. At 10.9
percent, it is more than double the effective rate on the very wealthy. This group generally
derives no benefit from the federal offset.

We could do this aaaaaalllllll night.

 

[mrplunkey]

What part of "state taxes are graduated" did you not understand? Is there really ambiguity in that statement?

I thought you financial types were supposed to be smart. I'm starting to get scared for your clients.

 

[75th]

Lets do this (if you have any interest in continuing an intelligent debate backed by facts and figures and stuff):

I understand that state taxes are graduated. There is no ambiguity in that statement.

Now, how do you explain the study I referenced that shows the top 1% pay a 6.4% state and local tax rate, whereas the middle class pay 9.7%? Does that or does that not fit the definition of a regressive tax system? Doesnt that invalidate your unsubstantiated claim that the rich pay a larger % of their income in state and local taxes than the middle class do?

 

[mrplunkey]

Lets do this (if you have any interest in continuing an intelligent debate backed by facts and figures and stuff):

Like real facts and figures, or are you going to make stuff up again?

I understand that state taxes are graduated. There is no ambiguity in that statement.

Now, how do you explain the study I referenced that shows the top 1% pay a 6.4% state and local tax rate, whereas the middle class pay 9.7%? Does that or does that not fit the definition of a regressive tax system? Doesnt that invalidate your unsubstantiated claim that the rich pay a larger % of their income in state and local taxes than the middle class do?

You're smart enough to know that that you're mixing income taxes with other taxes such as sales. Let's do a little math:

Joe Lunchbox makes $20k/year. He buys the discount isle 70/30 ground beef at $3/lb.

Then Joe Millionare enters the same store. He buys the prime aged fillet at $25/lb.

Lunchbox got charged 7% x $3 = $0.21 in taxes

Millionare got charged 7% x $25 = $1.75 in taxes -- a lot more.

But wait... Lunchbox just spent 0.21/20,000 = 0.00105 of his income on hamburger.

Now Millionare spent 0.000175% of his income on his fillet.

OMG! It's regressive! Joe Millionaire got a break! This is aweful!

But wait a second... Millionare spent over eight times more in taxes. And wait... he bought an expensive, high-margin product that lets the grocery store carry lost leader products like $3 hamburger in the first place. So the store made a killing on Millionaire and shifted some of its profits so it could sell to Lunchbox as well.

I can't tell if you're playing dumb or really don't get it. It's fun to play either way.

 

[75th]

Like real facts and figures, or are you going to make stuff up again?

Ah irony....

 

[Lestat]

+1

 

[mrplunkey]

Ah irony....

I don't blame you for staying away from a critical analysis of the post.

Tell me more about Gallup and Rasmussen!

 

[75th]

I don't blame you for staying away from a critical analysis of the post.

Ah irony....