Slashdot Mirror


User: J.+D.+Swann

J.+D.+Swann's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
5
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 5

  1. Re:Too many of them aren't worth following on Is There Too Much New Programming On TV? · · Score: 1

    I think the variety of real life would be more interesting. The cop bitching about a bum knee might stop him from getting his 20 years in, the secretary blowing the boss. Dirty cops, racist cops, cops that actually try to help people, cops that give a damn but are incompetent etc.

    You should absolutely watch "The Wire."

  2. Re: ... More effort than ... ? on EU Parliament Supports Suspending US Data Sharing · · Score: 1

    A suit has to have DEFINATE act toons and personnel.

    Act toons, baby?

  3. Re:This plane has four mechanically-linked turbine on An Entirely New Class of Aircraft Arrives · · Score: 1

    It's an entirely different kind of flying.

    Altogether.

  4. Pie! on What Robots Do For Christmas · · Score: 1

    Here on Chiron Beta Prime I think they made me a pie.

  5. Re:i'm sorry... on NASA To Auction Automated Code Generation Patents · · Score: 1

    Fact is that the top earners of the country pay the vast majority of all income tax dollars I thought I did a post last week where I showed the math and sourced appropriate irs.gov docs, but I can't find it. The gist: The numbers showed that the top 1% of earners paid something like 30% of ALL tax dollars received (as of 2008 - when things were supposed to be best for "the rich" due to Bush); the top 5% paid over 50%; and the top 10% paid something like 70%.

    Ok, so I see this a lot but what never seem to be mentioned is what percentage of total income is make by the people in those upper brackets.

    If the to 1% make 50% of all earned income and only pay 30% of income taxes then it seems that they might be under taxed. The problem I have is that I don't really know how much the top 1%, 5%, or 10% make compared to the rest of the income earning population. Maybe someone with better than my poor Google skills can find an uncontroversial source for those numbers.

    It's not that this necessarily invalidates your point, just that without the missing information I have no way to judge and yet I keep seeing similar posts to yours which kind of bothers me.

    David