In Reply to: Re: Interesting poll results (continuation) posted by Miguel on June 11, 2004 at 21:14:21:
Miguel,
You wrote:
"Yes, I plea ignorance on the assumptions that those stats are based on."
That sounds like a cop-out to me. It's very convenient to just say you don't know or don't trust the statistics I have cited. When people get into a mind set, they will avoid looking at anything that contradicts their position.
You've made some statements that have me scratching my head.
At first, you sound like you have a pretty good background in statistics, but suddenly, you jump off into statistical ya-ya land:
"Now, the other point is that this left half is bbounded on both sides, lower and upper boundaries while the 50% of people who make more than the 40K has no upper boundary. In other words, they can make millions of dollars, and in fact they do."
Huh?? You can not determine a median or even a percentage unless you have known boundaries at both ends of the sample! How on earth do you think the median income is determined to be $40,000 if the upper income is infinity?
In the statistical data I provided you, *all* income earners incomes were known, and were included in the sample. The income of the highest income earner is not an unknown quantity. The CBO data is derived from IRS records, and there is no mystery about the reported incomes of all income earners who report their income. For you to suggest that the right side boundary is unknown or infinity is ridiculous. What, pray tell, is the median of infinity? It certainly can't be $40,000!
Here's another head-scratcher. You wrote:
"In the end, it doesn't matter if tax is paid all in a flat rate or different rates, etc. My point is that the vast majority of people who make about 25K end up paying from what they don't have as opposed to those in the higher branches who pay from the abundance that they have."
Yeah, I know. You think our economic system is rotten to the core. So what's your alternative? I challenge you to name just one real-life economic system where everyone has economic equality. Sounds like you think everyone should earn the same amount. Just confiscate 100% of everyone's income and redistribute it in equal portions to everybody. Only problem with that idea is it takes away any financial incentive to work hard, excel in school, or do anything that will earn you more money, since it will just be confiscated. May as well be a slaker, since you'll still get the same income as everyone else. This kind of economic system has been tried before...it's called Marxism. I agree that capitalism isn't perfect, but it sure does work better than anything else that's been tried!
Before you go making any mor false assumptions about taxes, I suggest you talk to an accountant or go look at a copy of the workbook the IRS distributes to all tax payers each year. Those people you fret about who are earning $25,000 or less, are paying little or no taxes under the current tax structure. Many, after taking deductions, are even receiving the unearned income tax credit, meaning they are getting a "tax refund" when they paid zero taxes.
Here's a real-life example taken from the tax workbook:
John Doe is over 25 years old, has a wife and two children. He earned $25,000 gross income. Using the standard deductions, he will get a $1400 check from the IRS because he qualifies for the unearned income tax credit. Net result: Joe pays no taxes. Even if he is younger than 25 which disqualifies him to receive the unearned income tax credit, he will only owe about $333 in taxes for the year.
You wrote:
"And I still sustain that no voting is a vote in itself."
On this point, we are in agreement. In a close political race, those who don't vote can have an impact on the outcome of an ellection. If the majority of non-voters are liberal, it helps the conservative candidate if they don't vote. If the majority of non-voters are conservative, it helps the liberal candidate if they don't vote.