EWolfe Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Hey all you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 From what I can gather the wealth of the 400 top AGI taxpayers is nowhere close to what Darren is claiming the average wealth of the Forbes 400. Contributions bye the AGI top 400 as a % of total Contributions is as follows: ’97 – 2%,’98 – 3%, ’99 – 3%, ’00 – 7%. Remember that the return contribution totals understate actual giving. NB - Why don't you check out the top 400 of AGI v total AGI. You might find that an interesting number.  What's your point donkey? Lets get down to basics: You posted this to imply that the rich are disproportionately funding charity. The net-worth/household-wealth model is probably a much better comparison than AGI if you really want a picture of the upper class's contribution to charity. Despite being in higher tax brackets, the rich avoid a tremendous amount of taxes through shelters and loopholes. The AGI figures will not reflect this since they represent taxable income.  The end state is that there is a widening gap between the rich and the poor, and a disappearing middle class. The robber-barons better pony up some charity money, because all of us underlings are going to need it before long.  I will say this on your "leeches" comment: The hardest working fuckers I've seen in this country are typically the lowest paid. Try your hand on a mexican roofing crew or on a slaughterhouse line sometime Pete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 You suggest that the rich aren’t paying their fair share.  Actually I think Darin was just rebutting your statement that seemed to imply that the rich are paying more than their fair share (to charities as opposed to the federal govt.).  Ok let’s assume I agree. If someone makes a lot of money and they then have the obligation to share the wealth, I do not a see how people who for selfish reasons (like spending the summer climbing) choose to reduce their income/wealth can avoid a similar obligation at the assumed income/wealth levels they have voluntarily chosen not to achieve.  So are you saying that everyone has an inherent income? That they should pay back to the state an amount based on that potential? Gosh, that sorta sounds like Communism! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 By David Cay Johnston The New York Times  The 400 wealthiest taxpayers accounted for more than 1 percent of all the income in the United States in the year 2000, more than double their share just eight years earlier, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. But their tax burden plummeted over the period. The data, in a report that the IRS released Wednesday night, shows that the average income of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers was almost $174 million in 2000. That was nearly quadruple the $46.8 million average in 1992. The minimum income to qualify for the list was $86.8 million in 2000, more than triple the $24.4 million income of the 400 wealthiest taxpayers in 1992. While the sharp growth in incomes over that period coincided with the stock market bubble, other factors appear to account for much of the increase. A cut in capital gains tax rates in 1997 to 20 percent from 28 percent encouraged long-term holders of assets, such as privately owned businesses, to sell them, and big increases in executive compensation thrust corporate chiefs into the ranks of the nation's aristocracy. This year's tax cut reduced that rate to 15 percent.  The rate actually paid by the top 400 in 2000 was about the same as that paid by a single person making $123,000 or a married couple with two children earning $226,000, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a labor-backed group whose calculations are respected by a broad spectrum of tax experts.  --Oh yea, the 400 richest are bleeding to death. Please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 7, 2004 Author Share Posted January 7, 2004 You suggest that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. Actually I think Darin was just rebutting your statement that seemed to imply that the rich are paying more than their fair share (to charities as opposed to the federal govt.).  Ok let’s assume I agree. If someone makes a lot of money and they then have the obligation to share the wealth, I do not a see how people who for selfish reasons (like spending the summer climbing) choose to reduce their income/wealth can avoid a similar obligation at the assumed income/wealth levels they have voluntarily chosen not to achieve.  So are you saying that everyone has an inherent income? That they should pay back to the state an amount based on that potential? Gosh, that sorta sounds like Communism!  D Quote: Considering that we all need to build a certain amount of wealth to provide economic stability throughout our lives, the less wealthly need to focus on their own financial security before they can make significant charitable contributions. As a result you would expect the wealthy to be able to share a much greater portion of their wealth than the average American. But..they don't as you have so nicely brought to our attention.  I think he was suggesting that they weren't paying their fair share but regardless my intent in posting was to get someone to say it so I could call all the low life climbers leaches. I am not sure why you think I think anything should be paid to the state. I do believe that if you think the rich have some "fair share" that they owe to anyone/thing that it is hard not to argue that the underachievers owe to their potential as well.  Wow! Will What can I say except you missed the point with your Mexican roofer comment.  PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 7, 2004 Author Share Posted January 7, 2004 Oh yea Communism is just wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 I'd say the underachievers are paying more of their share than the richest 400. Â The rate actually paid by the top 400 in 2000 was about the same as that paid by a single person making $123,000 or a married couple with two children earning $226,000, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a labor-backed group whose calculations are respected by a broad spectrum of tax experts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 I did not contact the author but I have reviewed his source of data and despite the confusing nomenclature the top 400 are in fact related to AGI not wealth. PP- A quick survey of the Forbes 400 would show it's primarily related to wealth - in particular, stock market wealth. But then, I trust you to not dig to deep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Oh yea Communism is just wrong just curious puget, you think communism is okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 7, 2004 Author Share Posted January 7, 2004 I did not contact the author but I have reviewed his source of data and despite the confusing nomenclature the top 400 are in fact related to AGI not wealth. PP- A quick survey of the Forbes 400 would show it's primarily related to wealth - in particular, stock market wealth. But then, I trust you to not dig to deep. Â Earth to cj! You are correct about the Forbes 400; however, the NYT article is not referring to those media darlings. I would ask you to dig deeper. Â Cheers, PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 7, 2004 Author Share Posted January 7, 2004 Communism and Socialism are the darlings of idiots. Sorry my graemlin usage was off. Â Cheers, Â PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 whew! for a minute there I thought I'd have to start ignorin your fugly ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Earth to cj! You are correct about the Forbes 400; however, the NYT article is not referring to those media darlings. I would ask you to dig deeper. Ah PP - Â If their's one thing we can depend on the right for, it is righteous condscension. Â The article used the 400 largest tax returns - as can be seen this is a highly volatile measurement (only 21 were among the top earners ever year). As anyone knows, for tax management, you donate heavily when earning heavily. Â Naive idealism is far more appealing to me than naked savagery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 7, 2004 Author Share Posted January 7, 2004 Cj - Condescension? How so was i more condescending than you. In addition your were in error. I would just like to point out that I already brought up the volotility of both wealth and AGI measurements in terms of membership. I would now like to add that during 2000 the top 400 suffered a decline in assets of approximately 6%. In each of the three previous years they had increases. I also believe that since many of these top 400 gave in excess of the ceiling it should be obvious that there is more to work here than tax incentives. Â Do you give to your "inherent" income? Â PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.