Originally posted by whodeyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
Yes, happy tax day everyone!! So where is the proud liberals who should be singing this wonderful day as we give our hard earned monies to government so they can do great things for society? In fact, I wonder if those who decry the "W" tax cuts as "unfair" have voluntarily paid their taxes at the rate without the "W" tax cuts?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou've explained nothing, this has nothing to do with libertarian dogma, this is, as I have explained, about shaping an imaginary situation to give an answer you were looking for. The result is that it has no relevance to anything but itself.
No, it doesn't. I've already explained it but you refuse to understand it because understanding would mean denouncing some of your libertarian dogma.
3 edits
Originally posted by zeeblebot...notice how LOW the United States tax rate is (26.9% ) in comparison with the other countries on zeeblebot's list (which includes places like Scandanavia, UK, Spain, France, Germany, Canada, and Australia) - almost everyone else is 35% or higher. The only one that is lower is India, at 20%
Tax Freedom Days for countries by date Country Day of year % burden Date of year Updated Source Reference
India 74 20% 14 March 2000 Centre for Civil Society [1]
Australia 112 30.7% 22 April 2008 Centre for Independent Studies [2]
United States 99 26.9% 9 April 2010 Tax Foundation [3]
Estonia 114 31.1% 24 April 2007 Eesti Maksumaksjate Lii ...[text shortened]... % 29 July 2007 Skattebetalarna [25]
Norway 210 56.7% 29 July 2007 Skattebetalerforeningen [26][/b]
1 edit
Year TFD Percentage tax burden
1900 January 22 5.90%
1910 January 19 5.00%
1920 February 13 12.00%
1930 February 12 11.70%
1940 March 7 17.90%
1950 March 31 24.60%
1960 April 11 27.70%
1970 April 19 29.60%
1980 April 21 30.40%
1990 April 21 30.40%
2000 May 1 33.00%
2001 April 27 31.80%
2002 April 17 29.20%
2003 April 14 28.40%
2004 April 15 28.50%
2005 April 21 30.20%
2006 April 24 31.20%
2007 April 24 31.10%
2008 April 16 29.00%
2009 April 8 26.60%
2010 April 9 26.90%
also notice how LOW the current US number is compared to past years - you have to go back to 1950 to find a number lower than 26.90%
Originally posted by telerionFor everyone's info, that means Telerion makes well over $100k; probably closer to $200k. 😉
My Tax Freedom Day comes each year when I have reached the cap in my Social Security contributions and my paycheck gets noticeably larger.
And for all you nosey people out there, no it hasn't come yet. 🙁
Originally posted by Melanerpesthe patsies!
notice how LOW the United States tax rate is (26.9% ) in comparison with the other countries on zeeblebot's list (which includes places like Scandanavia, UK, Spain, France, Germany, Canada, and Australia) - almost everyone else is 35% or higher. The only one that is lower is India, at 20%
Originally posted by Melanerpes$200K isn't rich.
Sometimes I wonder if the people who aren't rich are a lot more opposed to "taxing the rich" than the rich people themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class#Income
Income
While many Americans cite income as the prime determinant of class, occupational status, educational attainment, and value systems are equally important variables. Income is in part determined by the scarcity of certain skill sets.[1] As a result an occupation that requires a scarce skill, the attainment of which is often achieved through an educational degree, and entrusts its occupant with a high degree of influence will usually offer high economic compensation. The high income is meant to ensure that individuals obtain the necessary skills (e.g. medical or graduate school) and complete their tasks with the necessary valor.[15] There are also differences between household and individual income. In 2005, 42% of US households (76% among the top quintile) had two or more income earners; as a result, 18% of households but only 5% of individuals had six figure incomes.[16] To illustrate, two nurses each making $55,000 per year can out-earn, in a household sense, a single attorney who makes a median of $95,000 annually.[17][18]
Sociologists Dennis Gilbert, Willam Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate the upper middle class to constitute roughly 15% of the population. Using the 15% figure one may conclude that the American upper middle class consists, strictly in an income sense, of professionals with personal incomes in excess of $62,500, who commonly reside in households with six figure incomes.[1][7][16][19] The difference between personal and household income can be explained by considering that 76% of households with incomes exceeding $90,000 (the top 20😵 had two or more income earners.[16]
Data Top third Top quarter Top quintile Top 15% Top 10% Top 5%
Household income[20]
Lower threshold (annual gross income) $65,000 $80,000 $91,705 $100,000 $118,200 $166,200
Exact Percentage of households 34.72% 25.60% 20.00% 17.80% 10.00% 5.00%
Personal income (age 25+)[21]
Lower threshold (annual gross income) $37,500 $47,500 $52,500 $62,500 $75,000 $100,000
Exact Percentage of individuals 33.55% 24.03% 19.74% 14.47% 10.29% 5.63%
SOURCE: US Census Bureau, 2006[20][21]
Note that the above income thresholds may vary greatly based on region due to significant differences in average income based on region and urban, suburban, or rural development. In more expensive suburbs, the threshold for the top 15% of income earners may be much higher. For example, in 2006 the ten highest income counties had median household incomes of $85,000 compared to a national average of about $50,000. The top 15% of all US income earners nationally tend to be more concentrated in these richer suburban counties where the cost of living is also higher. If middle class households earning between the 50th percentile ($46,000) and the 85th percentile ($62,500) tend to live in lower cost of living areas, then their difference in real income may be smaller than what the differences in nominal income suggest.
Originally posted by MelanerpesBUT, the middle class know that "taxing the rich" is more likely to become "taxing the middle class", given that there aren't enough golden gooses around to squeeze the needed shekels from.
Sometimes I wonder if the people who aren't rich are a lot more opposed to "taxing the rich" than the rich people themselves.
3 edits
Originally posted by zeeblebot"Rich" has no exact definition in this sense. Each person will have his/her own opinion. Personally, I wouldn't call 200K/yr rich either. At the same time, I've always thought it odd to call that income range "middle-class." A household making that much per year is well inside the top 5% of income earners. When I hear some co-workers who I know make over 200K refer to themselves as "middle-class", I think they sound very naive and almost cruel. It's like they don't realize how many families are trying to get by on $35-$65K/year.
$200K isn't rich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_middle_class#Income
Income
While many Americans cite income as the prime determinant of class, occupational status, educational attainment, and value systems are equally important variables. Income is in part determined by the scarcity of certain skill sets.[1] As a result an occupation that req ...[text shortened]... r difference in real income may be smaller than what the differences in nominal income suggest.
Now obviously if you live in a high cost of living city like NY or San Francisco you have to adjust your standard a bit. Still 200K is doing pretty well even in those places.
I tend to think more about the income distribution than a quality of life statistic when I assign income classes, but I acknowledge the drawbacks of doing so.
Here's my own subjective scale for a family of four.
Annual Income
< $20K = poor
$20K < $40K = Lower middle class
$40 < $90K = Middle class
$90K < $500K = Upper Middle class
$500K = Income Rich
And then somewhere you maybe hit "super rich."
One big problem with labeling somebody by their annual income is that for many their income moves quite a bit over their life. Some studies have found that a large fraction of households that made in the top 1% in one year were in only the top 5% or 10% a few years later. Often times (especially with this income in the top 1😵, that high income is just a transitory blip.