Ask500

If you are interested in post-death hyperbole regarding people that are famous for doing nothing particularly amazing, then yes, it must surely be disappointing that Jackson died the same week as Fawcett. Though McMahon is probably getting the shortest stick.

It seems rather pointless that "news" stations are reporting on these people on a loop rather than saying anything worth anything.

Plot/story.

Not that many WWII reenactments just yet, but I guess I could follow your reasoning because I doubt that every Confederate soldier in a reenactment is racist. They may just live in the south or that is where they were assigned that weekend.

It is a very tough sell though. And one should probably avoid Nazi regalia in almost all situations.

..

I disagree. Children benefit from seeing their parents love and care for each other. Also, not being the focus of the parents' lives is good so that children realize they are not the center of the universe.

Putting children first can alienate spousal relationships.

Of course this is all a matter of degree and I'm not saying to neglect kids either.

..

I'd love to agree with more vigor, but I don't want to risk getting my hopes up.

..

The top 25% was not 90% of taxes according to your own figures. Go graph it (as I did) and see how quickly it drops.

According to your figures:

Top 1% = 40% of taxes

The next 4% = 20% of taxes

The next 5% = 10% of taxes

The next 15% = 15% of taxes

To get to 90% of taxes requires to to follow that line, not just assume that 86% = 90%. So considering that it takes an additional 25% of the population to get another 11% of taxes, it is at least at the 30 or 35% mark to get to 90% of taxes.

You said - "the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes" - which is anywhere from 2.5 to 3.5 times off the mark. That is a considerable margin. Go pay $7.50 to $10.50 for each gallon of gas (roughly 2.5 - 3.5 the going price) and tell me it is not a significant difference.

Regarding people not dropping out of the top 10% because of taxes, the only way they drop out of that position is if others around them are avoiding taxes in some way (breaks, dependents, loopholes, evasion, etc.) So, sure, I cannot say for certain. Based on income tax which is the figure YOU gave, and no other information, then people in the same bracket pay the same rate and don't move relative to one another.

How do I know they are doing just fine? Because the BOTTOM income in the top fifth (that is to say the person or persons sitting at the 20% mark) make $100,000 per year.

Also, because I know that the line on the graph for income starts off almost flat and slowly rises until it starts shooting off on a hyperbolic trajectory. Meaning that the top 5% are not just a bit above $100,000.

And when I said "I was not challenging your figures," I was referring to my initial post. My initial post was saying, the rich in this country became rich in part because of the opportunities allowed here and while they are continuing to rake in the dough they don't want to pay it back. That's it. I did not challenge your figures.

You then responded with figures, and I responded to THAT response. Again I note, just above you chided ask001 by saying, "I hope you actually read what people type..." I hope you do the same. So in that paragraph some messages above, I said, "I was not challenging your figures." Past tense.

..

You are again either making misleading statements or outright changing the facts. First, on $20/hr wage (with 40hrs/wk, that is $41,600 gross) you pay $8,027 in fed taxes (incl. soc. sec.). Even if the state taxes are the same (minus soc. sec.) of $4,845 then you still have net pay of $28,305 -- or 68%, not the roughly 35% you indicate. And state taxes are not the same amount as federal, so take home should be a bit more.

Even taking into account property tax and sales tax (which not every location/state has), I see no way to whittle down roughly 70% of gross pay by half. Unless you are only buying cigarettes, in NYC, no food, no rent.

Second of all, "Bush never invaded Iraq, the military did with Congress's blessing (democratic controlled)" is disingenuous at best.

A. The Congress would not have acted without Bush and his cabinet campaigning for the invasion. It's not as if they voted for it in a vacuum and he blindly followed their orders (and their bad intelligence).

B. "In October 2002 the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". [The] resolution authorized the President to "use any means necessary" against Iraq"

Which means that it was still up to the president to decide what to do. Since you want to get technical, they only authorized the president to act. They did not invade Iraq. The army did, as you say, but who was the commander-in-chief at the time? Oh, right, Bush.

C. Finally, "democratic controlled." Let's dive into that, shall we. From January 2001 to January 2003 the Congress was split. Dems had a slight majority in the Senate, Reps had a slight majority in the House. Controlled by Democrats? No.

And guess who controls all spending bills, oh, right, the House.

I'm not sticking up for the Dems in Congress at the time. That entire branch of government was asleep at the wheel. However, don't change the facts to suit your opinion.

You chide ask001 with, "I hope you actually read what people type..." So to you I say, I hope you actually read the facts from now on, because they do not verify your claims.

..

While I appreciate the follow up information, I was not challenging your figures (though they were well off).

What I was saying was that while they may be paying more in taxes, they are still in the top 10% (or the top 30%, as it turns out). They are doing just fine.

..

You'll need to first qualify "we," in "...and we stop them..." I work for the U.S. government and I am far more concerned with how much money gets wasted than I am with anyone else in the world wanting to enslave me. That is even assuming that all the programs that you or people like you want to have funded, stay in place. Even if all those programs were necessary, massive amounts of money is spent without need.

I, on the other hand, am of the mindset that it is not necessary to spend as much as the rest of the world put together on defense spending. (And yes, I do consider $650B to be roughly the same as $820B, what we spend and what the rest of the world spends respectively, especially when we are such a small portion of the population.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

It is better to have what you need, but it is better still to NOT have 500 when you only need 3 or 10 or even 100.

Or if you need 500, to have 500 that work as advertised, come in anywhere close to on-budget, and actually fill the gap that necessitated them in the first place. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARH-70

Unless you have specific knowledge that all this waste is doing something other than lining the pockets of defense corporations, your position is indefensible. Pun intended.

You cannot protect the country from everything, it is ridiculous to try, not to mention expensive to the point of bankruptcy. In the past 50 years we've spent $22T on defense budget. That doesn't include stuff on the side, hidden add-ons, extras for the wars, etc.

I understand the history of the situation, and I'm not saying it was all wasted, or even most of it as lots of technology has come about because of the research (though it could certainly have been done by other departments, which could be less secretive, which would allow for competition, which would reduce costs). What I am saying is that shaving 10% a year, even 5% would have given us a massive amount of cash to invest elsewhere, or to not add to the debt.

Without getting into the side-point of granting you that saved money wouldn't sit around or actually be saved, my actual point is that there is a lot of waste going on and a very significant majority of that funnels directly to and through the DoD. I think that needs to change.

..

One of the benefits of living here is the possibility of accruing such wealth. So they want the benefits but do not want the responsibilities.

Plus, if the taxing were that onerous, they would fall out of the top 10%, and yet, there they are still up there with all their money. Must be a hard life.