On a related note, Trump had played twice as much golf in two months than Obama did in eight years.
Alternate facts? Obama played 333 rounds of golf in 8 years. Assuming 5 hours per round, that would be 70 days non-stop, 24/7 golfing. I don't think President Trump has golfed that much, yet...
No, this is like saying "Deep Throat gave us clues about Nixon, and thus he should be impeached". Rice clearly broke the lie, lied about it, and has implicated most of the previous Administration in breaking privacy laws. But I guess that doesn't matter to you because Trump.
Correct, it runs from 400 to 1600. A 1000 score is now "average". Now, getting into a Ivy league school will require considerably higher scores and a better GPA and such, but for most State schools, a slightly-below-average student can still get in if they want.
An average student would have a 1083 SAT score. So we're talking about a slightly below average student in both SAT and GPA. I don't think many who are well below average would be seriously interested in college in the first place. Especially when you can do a 400 SAT (absolute minimum score - you got your name right and nothing else) and have a 3.15 GPA and qualify.
Requirements to attend CSUN. Score 1000 on SATs (combined math and english), and earn a 2.4 GPA during high school and you qualify. That's pretty darn easy to hit for any average student...
It does? CSUN, Cal State Northridge (northern suburb of Los Angeles), is around half the number you state. I'm pretty sure you'll find most State universities are closer to this number as well. Sure, it's not an "ivy league" education, but for $600/month, that's not a really high expense. Minimum wage in LA County is $12 per hour, so yeah - you have to work 50 hours a month to cover tuition. For most students, this really won't be a big stretch (other than cutting into the beer and party funds)...
Apple's been advertising/looking for GPU verification engineers and IC process engineers on LinkedIn and other sites for months. If this was a "secret" it was one of the worst-kept secrets out there...
So to summarize: we're progressive in taxation, but you believe it needs to be much more progressive. Correct? How much more progressive? And how many non-wealthy people have you worked for?
What we have right now is exactly what you're arguing for, then. As you move up in income, you pay progressively higher taxes (in absolute dollar and by percent of income). Are you saying it needs to be more progressive?
No we don't. Inflation is only "low" because the Government has decided that when it used to price out a pound of beef, it can now use 12 ounces, and that when it used to determine energy to keep your house at 70 degrees it now decides that 67 degrees is good enough. Inflation statistics are highly skewed, and real inflation is running a lot worse (try to find a half gallon of ice cream any more - that old standard in the pre-1990s is now impossible to find, they are all 1.5 to 1.75 quarts, yet the Government only calculates inflation based on the increase per package, not the change in the size of the package).
The Social Security Administration says that in 20 years it's out of money and can only pay about 76% of benefits promised. And that either a 16% benefit cut immediately, or a 16% raise in taxes, is required to stave off this problem. That's not a minor adjustment, and if it was a private pension the Federal Government would declare it insolvent.
Look at the data presented. The top 1% make 20% of all income, and they pay 40% of all income taxes. In other words, the richer you become, the higher your tax load in percentage AND raw dollars.
History shows that economic mobility is key to long-term success. Median income is $50K per household, but that means half are above it. Having the ability to move up - and the risk of moving down - is what drives things the best. What you're arguing is that income/wealth should be capped. And that is simply never good...
That person who earned $300,000 didn't pay $5,000; they probably paid (if we go by the published data) $60,000 in taxes. So exactly what you demand to happen IS happening. The data's posted, it's right here and it's completely correct. "The rich" pay disproportionately more of their income to taxes than the rest of the population.
So here's an interesting question: how much more should they pay? What would be the appropriate multiple of tax-to-income relative the middle class? Twice as much? Three times as much? Ten times as much?
And those same 1% are then paying 40% of all income taxes (and something like 70% of all capital gains tax, and 35% of all FICA taxes). In other words - they earn "obscene" levels of income, but pay more than "obscene" levels of tax, well above anyone else.
Nebraska income tax does not have a cap; Buffet is in the top category, and will pay the most of probably anyone in Nebraska. So it's not State income tax. Perhaps it's State sales tax and property tax? I guess we can consider those who rent and buy little other than food and medicine (both of which are exempt from sales tax in Nebraska) as gaming the system and not paying their fair share?
He may be the exception to the rule, because actual data shows the top 1% pay not only the highest effective tax rate, but twice their "share of income" relative to the total income tax paid. Buffet is most likely the exception rather than the rule - unless the rest of the top 1% are doing it wrong?
Facts say otherwise about who the wealthy support. And I know it's popular to talk about "rich don't pay taxes" even though data says otherwise. The claim about "they earn money in different ways" is about capital gains taxes, which are taxed, for the rich, at 20%, which is a tax rate solidly in the top 10% of all payers. Essentially - everything you posted is wrong.
Actual data shows that those "rich Republicans" tend to pay the most in income tax. The wealthiest 1% pay 40% of all income taxes even though they make just 20% of all income. We have a highly progressive tax structure with the rich paying well above "their fair share". Unless your implication is that only Democrats are rich?
How many wars between the US and EU members, since WWII? Go ahead, count them. Somehow, without being part of the EU, we've managed to NOT have a war as well. Imagine that! Likewise with OECD countries, the G8, etc. Maybe it's not the EU that created the stability but the growth of trade between the countries - which exploded well before the EU founding...
Slashdot Mirror
On a related note, Trump had played twice as much golf in two months than Obama did in eight years.
Alternate facts? Obama played 333 rounds of golf in 8 years. Assuming 5 hours per round, that would be 70 days non-stop, 24/7 golfing. I don't think President Trump has golfed that much, yet...
No, this is like saying "Deep Throat gave us clues about Nixon, and thus he should be impeached". Rice clearly broke the lie, lied about it, and has implicated most of the previous Administration in breaking privacy laws. But I guess that doesn't matter to you because Trump.
Correct, it runs from 400 to 1600. A 1000 score is now "average". Now, getting into a Ivy league school will require considerably higher scores and a better GPA and such, but for most State schools, a slightly-below-average student can still get in if they want.
An average student would have a 1083 SAT score. So we're talking about a slightly below average student in both SAT and GPA. I don't think many who are well below average would be seriously interested in college in the first place. Especially when you can do a 400 SAT (absolute minimum score - you got your name right and nothing else) and have a 3.15 GPA and qualify.
Requirements to attend CSUN. Score 1000 on SATs (combined math and english), and earn a 2.4 GPA during high school and you qualify. That's pretty darn easy to hit for any average student...
LIAR! With your UID, man hadn't even invented war, let alone canning...
It does? CSUN, Cal State Northridge (northern suburb of Los Angeles), is around half the number you state. I'm pretty sure you'll find most State universities are closer to this number as well. Sure, it's not an "ivy league" education, but for $600/month, that's not a really high expense. Minimum wage in LA County is $12 per hour, so yeah - you have to work 50 hours a month to cover tuition. For most students, this really won't be a big stretch (other than cutting into the beer and party funds)...
They did? I guess having an "expected" profit of $0.10 per share, but ending up losing $0.87 per share counts as a profit?
Apple's been advertising/looking for GPU verification engineers and IC process engineers on LinkedIn and other sites for months. If this was a "secret" it was one of the worst-kept secrets out there...
So to summarize: we're progressive in taxation, but you believe it needs to be much more progressive. Correct? How much more progressive? And how many non-wealthy people have you worked for?
What we have right now is exactly what you're arguing for, then. As you move up in income, you pay progressively higher taxes (in absolute dollar and by percent of income). Are you saying it needs to be more progressive?
No we don't. Inflation is only "low" because the Government has decided that when it used to price out a pound of beef, it can now use 12 ounces, and that when it used to determine energy to keep your house at 70 degrees it now decides that 67 degrees is good enough. Inflation statistics are highly skewed, and real inflation is running a lot worse (try to find a half gallon of ice cream any more - that old standard in the pre-1990s is now impossible to find, they are all 1.5 to 1.75 quarts, yet the Government only calculates inflation based on the increase per package, not the change in the size of the package).
Inflation is not really the problem, if you get paid good money convert it to gold, property or other item of real value.
Inflation is a problem (it's been chronically understated compared to how it was calculated in 1980 and 1990), and it is awfully hard to eat gold or dirt...
What tax load should there be on "the rich"? What level should be set to determine someone is "rich"?
The Social Security Administration says that in 20 years it's out of money and can only pay about 76% of benefits promised. And that either a 16% benefit cut immediately, or a 16% raise in taxes, is required to stave off this problem. That's not a minor adjustment, and if it was a private pension the Federal Government would declare it insolvent.
Look at the data presented. The top 1% make 20% of all income, and they pay 40% of all income taxes. In other words, the richer you become, the higher your tax load in percentage AND raw dollars.
History shows that economic mobility is key to long-term success. Median income is $50K per household, but that means half are above it. Having the ability to move up - and the risk of moving down - is what drives things the best. What you're arguing is that income/wealth should be capped. And that is simply never good...
That person who earned $300,000 didn't pay $5,000; they probably paid (if we go by the published data) $60,000 in taxes. So exactly what you demand to happen IS happening. The data's posted, it's right here and it's completely correct. "The rich" pay disproportionately more of their income to taxes than the rest of the population.
So here's an interesting question: how much more should they pay? What would be the appropriate multiple of tax-to-income relative the middle class? Twice as much? Three times as much? Ten times as much?
And those same 1% are then paying 40% of all income taxes (and something like 70% of all capital gains tax, and 35% of all FICA taxes). In other words - they earn "obscene" levels of income, but pay more than "obscene" levels of tax, well above anyone else.
Nebraska income tax does not have a cap; Buffet is in the top category, and will pay the most of probably anyone in Nebraska. So it's not State income tax. Perhaps it's State sales tax and property tax? I guess we can consider those who rent and buy little other than food and medicine (both of which are exempt from sales tax in Nebraska) as gaming the system and not paying their fair share?
He may be the exception to the rule, because actual data shows the top 1% pay not only the highest effective tax rate, but twice their "share of income" relative to the total income tax paid. Buffet is most likely the exception rather than the rule - unless the rest of the top 1% are doing it wrong?
Facts say otherwise about who the wealthy support. And I know it's popular to talk about "rich don't pay taxes" even though data says otherwise. The claim about "they earn money in different ways" is about capital gains taxes, which are taxed, for the rich, at 20%, which is a tax rate solidly in the top 10% of all payers. Essentially - everything you posted is wrong.
Actual data shows that those "rich Republicans" tend to pay the most in income tax. The wealthiest 1% pay 40% of all income taxes even though they make just 20% of all income. We have a highly progressive tax structure with the rich paying well above "their fair share". Unless your implication is that only Democrats are rich?
How many wars between the US and EU members, since WWII? Go ahead, count them. Somehow, without being part of the EU, we've managed to NOT have a war as well. Imagine that! Likewise with OECD countries, the G8, etc. Maybe it's not the EU that created the stability but the growth of trade between the countries - which exploded well before the EU founding...
Good! Let's leave Elon there as well...